Final Research Project

Clean Up Our Act! There Is No Excuse for Littering!
As Minnesotans, we may live a busy lifestyle and forget to notice that the environment we live in is surrounded by litter. When you walk out of your house or go to class, or when you are driving or on the bus on your way to school or work, if you take the time to look at your surroundings, you will notice that litter is almost everywhere. It is in the street, on the highway, on the sidewalk, on the playgrounds, in the lakes and in the rivers, and more! It is everywhere! The world we live in is becoming a landfill right before our eyes. There are environmentalists fighting to decrease the usage of plastic bottles and bags, to have clean drinking water, to preserve our forests and coral reefs, and for many other important issues. However, how can humans even start to fight for our environment when not all humans can even take the first most simple and basic step to throw trash into the correct facilities? Littering is a root of our environmental problems. Once we stop littering, our goals of reducing pollution, obtaining clean water, and etc. can become more attainable. If all humans threw trash into the correct places, our government wouldn’t have to spend millions of dollars to clean roads and public places every year. All the money could be used towards something much more useful like recycling centers or the education system. Littering is something that can we can all do something about and it’s also one of the main contributors of pollution. This study covers the basics of littering (what littering is, why people litter, what the impacts of littering are, and how you can prevent littering), but it also concentrates on Minnesota and how we can deal with our litter.

What is litter?
According to Asimov (1992), "Any item disposed of improperly is called litter” (p. 7). This includes any bottle caps (plastic or aluminum can), gum wrappers, water bottles, napkins, paper cups, plastic lids, plastic bags, cigarette butts that have not been correctly discarded into the trash or recycling bin. It doesn’t matter if the item was accidentally blown away by the wind; it is still considered littering and the item should be chased down and disposed of properly.

"We live in a disposable world. So many things are made to be used only once and then thrown away. Paper cups, plastics silverware, cans, and soft drink bottles are thrown out by the ton everyday” (Asimov, 1992, p. 7). This is why we have so much trash and litter. "Litter lines city streets, floats down rivers, washes up on beaches, and blows through parks. There's even litter in space" (Asimov, 1992, p.5). There’s so much litter that according to the MN Department of Transportation, “Minnesota spends $5 million a year collecting litter – not counting what cities and counties spend.” Keep America Beautiful states that tobacco products, mostly cigarette butts, are the most littered item on U.S. roadways (38%). This is followed by paper (22%) and plastic (19%). According to Spacek (2008), beverage containers account for 40 to 60 percent of most total litter volume” (p. 3).

MN Litter Statistics:
*Adopt-a-Highway volunteers pick up litter on more than 12,000 miles of Minnesota roadways. (MN DOT)
*Adopt-a-Highway volunteers pick up approximately 26,000 tons of litter every year. (MN DOT)
*Researchers calculate that 55% of all littering is done intentionally by people who drop or discard products. (MN DOT)
*45% of roadside litter occurs unintentionally when trash blows out of uncovered trucks or falls off unsecured loads. (MN DOT)
*Experts estimate that approximately 80% of all littering is done by males. (MN DOT)

Why do people litter?
People litter because it is the most convenient way to get rid of trash if correct disposals are not nearby. Keep America Beautiful states:

“Research shows that smokers will litter cigarette butts, lighters, matches and packaging material if an ash receptacle is not readily available. Cigarette litter occurs most often at Transition Points. Transition Points are those places where a person must discontinue smoking before proceeding. A bus stop, a store entrance, building loading docks, walkways leading to government buildings and similar places are the Transition Points in a neighborhood.”

People will toss out cups and cans while driving as well. Some people think that if an area already has litter, it wouldn’t make a difference add some more litter on it. “People appear more self-conscious about littering in non-littered areas” (Spacek, 2008, p. 3). Some people are unwilling to travel to a legal landfill due to cost or distance, so they may take part in littering. Taxpayers may also feel their littering is acceptable, assuming someone is paid to eventually clean litter up (Spacek, 2008, p. 3). They are paying their taxes to have litter cleaned up, so why not take advantage of it? Another reason people may litter is because they are unaware they are littering. Some people think the items they are throwing out are small and will decompose. However, that is not always true. As you will see below, cigarettes do not compose as fast and affects the environment in ways that you wouldn’t expect.

The main reason people litter is because they are lazy. People should know by now that correct disposals will never always be available when they need them. Because of this, people should take responsibility and bring bags or ash trays with them. These items are small and collapsible and can be placed in cars, purses, backpacks, and more. If everyone planned for little moments like these, there would be no litter.

Why should people not litter?
-ugly and uninviting to visitors
-decrease real estate value
-expensive, money could be spent elsewhere
-harmful to the environment and human health
-dangerous to animals and humans

Litter is ugly and uninviting to visitors. According to the MN Dept. of Transportation, “Litter is unsightly. It destroys the natural beauty of Minnesota’s roadsides.” Because of this, parks, businesses, and homes close to or surrounded by litter, become unattractive and don’t draw many buyers or visitors. Not only is it ugly, it is expensive and as indicated above, costs Minnesotans $5 million a year to collect litter and that is not including what cities and counties each spend. This money could be spent on other important issues, such as: creating recycling centers, purification for clean drinking water, and etc. Instead, the money is being used for something that could be well prevented.

Litter is not only ugly and expensive to clean up, it is detrimental to our “environment and health. According to the Great Lakes Water Institute:

"Excessive litter can have damaging effects on wildlife and be harmful to human health. Litter on streets or sidewalks, if not cleaned up, will most likely end up in a river, lake, or ocean. Certain types of litter contain nutrients that may build up in excess in the water and cause algal blooms which deplete oxygen levels (Petrie et al.). This in turn creates a lower quality aquatic habitat where fewer delicate species can survive. Litter can also degrade water quality if there are other harmful chemicals associated with it, which can be harmful to humans if, for example, they eat fish from that body of water. Another way that litter can cause health problems is if it builds up and attracts rats or other pests that may carry disease.”

Depending on what types of litter are thrown, they can create dangerous environments for animals and human beings. Spacek states that “Livestock and wildlife have injured themselves by stepping on or consuming rubbish mistaken for food. Roadway and boating debris cause hundreds of serious injuries and deaths annually nationwide” (2008, p. 3).

Cigarette butts, the most littered item, are dangerous to us in many ways. According to Clean Virginia Waterways, “about 900 people in the United States die each year in fires started by cigarettes, and about 2,500 are injured. About 100 of the fire deaths each year are children and nonsmokers. Nationally, annual human and property costs of fires caused by careless smoking total about $6 billion. In 1997, there were more than 130,000 cigarette related fires.”

As stated by Cigarettelitter.org:

“There is a lot of misinformation out there regarding cigarette butt litter. The biggest myth is that cigarette filters are biodegradable. In fact, cigarette butts are not biodegradable in the sense that most people think of the word. The acetate (plastic) filters can take many years to decompose. Smokers may not realize that their actions have such a lasting, negative impact on the environment. Cigarette filters are made of cellulose acetate tow, NOT COTTON, and they can take decades to degrade. Not only does cigarette litter ruin even the most picturesque setting, but the toxic residue in cigarette filters is damaging to the environment, and littered butts cause numerous fires every year, some of them fatal.”

When a butt becomes litter, wind and rain carry the cigarette into the water supply, where the toxic chemicals the cigarette filter was designed to trap leak out into aquatic ecosystems. This threatens the quality of the water and many aquatic life forms (Cigarettelitter.org).

What can you do to prevent littering?
Being a responsible human being and taking care of our planet means people will dispose of their trash in the proper facilities. This means that people should throw their cigarette butts in ash trays and their pop cans in recycling bins. Always have a bag or mini trash can ready in your car in case you may need to get rid of waste. When you arrive at home, dispose of the trash in your bag properly by locating the recyclables and placing them in your recycling bins and by placing the trash in a garbage can. Most of the items we use are recyclable, so make sure it is before you toss it into a garbage can. If you are a smoker and need an ash tray to carry around, contact Cigarettelitter.org at the address below. “We will mail back the envelope with four free ashtrays as pictured at right. You must include a valid return address and sufficient postage on your envelope in order to get the free ashtrays” (Cigaretterlitter.org).

CigaretteLitter.Org
PO Box 172
Culver City, CA 90232

People can also take action by cleaning up littered areas. If on goers see that an area is clean, they will feel guiltier for littering and may think twice before littering or possibly choose not to litter.

Minnesota is actually doing pretty well with all our trash. According to BioCycle (July 2006), Minnesota ranked in BioCycle “State of Garbage” as the second highest in the nation when it comes to recycling rates. Minnesota has the third largest number of curbside recycling programs and charges a Solid Waste Management Tax on garbage but not on recycling, which makes garbage ore expensive and recycling cheaper. About 75 percent of residents have curbside recycling service (p. 14). Although Minnesota is one of the best, there is always room for improvement.

To further expand on Minnesota and its recycling programs, the Solid Waste Report (April 28, 2010) included some information on Genesis Poly Recycling. “Genesis Poly Recycling Inc. claims by the end of the summer, its facility in Mankato, MN will specialize in handling materials other processors previously thought to be unrecyclable. The facility will process 60 million pounds annually of plastic bags, films, pesticide jugs, plastic pails, and others…. With full capabilities by the end of the summer, company officials said.” (p. 7)

Minnesota is doing very well compared to other states, but like I said, there is always room for improvement. The money Minnesota residents rake out each year for litter clean up can be well spent in other areas of need. In order to improve our environment and health, we need to start from the root of our problems and littering, is one of the roots of our problems. In order to grow and succeed at other things, we must fix the central problem. Once the issue of littering is solved, we can move onto greater goals and projects. Once we can help ourselves, we can help other countries in need as well. Being environmentally friendly means to be responsible- to tackle all problems that could arise from your actions. Help yourself and most importantly, help the world, become the best that we can be!

References:

• Asimov, Isaac. (1992). Why does litter cause problems? Milwaukee, WI: Gareth Stevens Publishing.
• Cigarettelitter.org http://www.cigarettelitter.org/
• Clean Virginia Waterways http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/cigbuttimpacts.htm
• Great Lakes Water Institute http://www.glwi.uwm.edu/
• Keep America Beautiful http://www.kab.org/site/PageServer?pagename=focus_litter_prevention
• MN Department of Transportation http://www.dot.state.mn.us/adopt/litterfacts.html
• (July 2006). Regional Roundup [Electronic version]. BioCycle, 14.
• (April 18, 2010). Solid Waste Report [Electronic version]. Page 7
• Spacek, Steve. (2008). The american state litter scorecard: A sociopolitical inquiry into littering and the response role of 50 american states. The 2008 American Society for Public Administration Conference.

Green Ad Analysis

Caribou Coffee to be 100% Rainforest Alliance Certified

You can also find this page at:
http://www.cariboucoffee.com/page/1/r-alliance.jsp

With the world market being so competitive, companies turn to advertising to help bring their products forward into the light. Sometimes these products and ideas that are brought forward are wonderful and work the way they claim they do. Other times, these products and ideas may seem “better,” but truthfully, it is all a play with words, which is also known as "greenwashing," with hopes that the consumer will not do any research to find the truth.

The main goal of this ad analysis is to discover whether or not the green ad/e-mail, Caribou Coffee with the emphasis on being 100% Rainforest Alliance certified, is truthfully as great of a product/company as they claim they are. Different advertising tactics such as: imagery, symbols, target audience, language, and information will be discussed.

Because I am on the Caribou Coffee mailing list, whenever they have deals or something new happening, an email gets automatically sent to me. Last week, I received an email from Caribou Coffee with the subject line titled “Caribou Coffee is Committed to 100% Rainforest Alliance Certification.” Normally, I delete their emails right away because I assume the email is telling me about a promotion they have going on, but this one caught my attention. The words “100% Rainforest Alliance Certification” caught my eye. The number “100%” is very dramatic here, because this percentage is very hard to achieve and completely absolute. The next most attention grabbing words for me was “rainforest” and "certification." As soon as these terms turned up, I knew it had to do with the environment and being the eco-conscious person that I am, I had to read this e-mail to find out what changes were coming.

When the email opens up, it is completely colorful. There are soft and nature colors such as: tan, brown, green, blue, and white. There are no colors such as gold, copper, or silver, which would likely illustrate industrialization. At the top, in big green and bold letters states, “All of our coffee will be 100% Rainforest Alliance Certified by the end of 2011.” Right below that is a brief description about Caribou Coffee’s plan to become 100% Rainforest Alliance certified and the year they plan to achieve this goal by. The paragraph below that acknowledges the quality of good coffee and the importance of being environmentally, socially, and economically friendly. To the right of that paragraph is a big green Rainforest Alliance certified stamp with a frog. So, this is the stamp of approval? Below all of Caribou’s declarations is a landscape style portrait of a waterfall, some lavishly green mountains with sun shining threw the clouds, and a bag of Caribou Coffee. Below this huge picture, is a description of what the rainforest alliance is.

The ad is targeting 18+ year old coffee drinkers who are internet savvy and environmentally friendly. Although many older people drink coffee, most are not computer friendly and would not have known anything about Caribou Coffee teaming up with the Rainforest Alliance unless they read it in the newspaper or saw it at the store themselves. This ad is trying to maintain its current customers as well as draw in more customers. The ad was sent out to current customers so that the customers could have an increase in positive feelings and have a sense of what their favorite coffee company (Caribou Coffee) was doing to help the world. While doing this, they hope that their current customers will also spread this news to other eco-friendly coffee drinkers as well.

The general ambience of this ad is relaxing. It is almost like walking into a spa where you hear the sound of water and nature. There are only soothing colors and nothing bright and dramatic that pops out at you. This ad indeed makes the audience feel comfortable, refreshing, and free. The images shown in this ad seem worry free and beautiful. All you see is bright shining sun over thick green mountains and beautiful waterfalls.

The words and the pictures in the ad do not go hand in hand. Caribou Coffee talks about how their coffee will benefit environmentally, socially and economically, but they only reveal pictures of the environmental side. What about socially and economically? It makes me wonder if they just picked these random pictures from somewhere and used it in their email. If they want their ad to be truthful, they should take pictures of the land where they plant their coffee. They should take pictures of the people who plant their coffee and how their coffee affects the people economically within that area. One thing that struck me was how Caribou Coffee didn’t explain what it meant to be 100% Rainforest Alliance Certified or how to achieve it. The answer should have been at the top along with their other declarations. Instead, the Rainforest Alliance information was all the way at the bottom separated by the beautiful pictures.

In the first paragraph of the email, it states, “Caribou is proud to announce that we are the first major coffeehouse retailed committing to 100 percent Rainforest Alliance certification for all its coffees, a goal we plan to achieve by the end of 2011.” There, the word “first” caught my eye. It sparked my curiosity and I compared it with Peace Coffee, a local organic and free trade coffee company. I always thought of Peace Coffee as being the best coffee, because their coffee tasted great and was organic along with free trade. However, they weren’t Rainforest Alliance certified, so does this mean they are not as positive as Caribou Coffee? I had to find out what it meant to be Rainforest Alliance certified. According to the Rainforest Alliance website (http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/index.cfm), “The Rainforest Alliance works to conserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable livelihoods by transforming land-use practices, business practices and consumer behavior.” If you click on the link below, you will see what it means to be Rainforest Alliance certified.

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/certification.cfm?id=about


I made a phone call to Caribou Coffee to ask if their beans were organic. The customer service representative, Jeff, indicated to me that their beans were not organic, but that the pesticides/fertilizers used are correctly disposed. Although the beans are not organic, at least they are disposing these chemicals correctly and at a minimum so that it won’t reach the plants, animals, and humans within the environment. Along with preventing environmental problems, Caribou Coffee is also dedicated to making a social and economic impact on communities. Socially and economically, workers will have health care, a decent wage, education, sustainable sourcing, and safe working conditions with an equal opportunity for all.

Overall, this ad was not very effective in showing what it meant to be “100% Rainforest Alliance Certified.” A complete description should have been included on the email that was sent out to consumers showing what the process of becoming certified was. There needs to be more information about the Rainforest Alliance and what its missions are. Caribou Coffee provided the Rainforest Alliance’s website for more information, but they should have had the information on their website as well, because this is a very big deal if they are becoming 100% certified. Why should the customer have to search for the information? Shouldn't they be very proud that they are positively affecting others and would want to show this upfront? This change is good, but will not be 100% good until everything is organic. Over time, I hope Caribou Coffee finds ways to become organic and free trade as well. I know it would benefit a lot people because they are one of the biggest coffee chains; therefore, they have a chance to make a big difference.

Environmental News Analysis Assignment

Hi there! The article I am analyzing is from CNN.com titled Toxic towns: People of Mossville 'are like an experiment' and dated February 26, 2010. To view the article, click on its link which is under the News Analysis list to the left of this blog. There is a video and some pictures too, so feel free to check it out!

Anaylsis:

The CNN.com news article titled “Toxic Towns: People of Mossville ‘are like an experiment,’” talks about residents from Mossville, Louisiana. Majority of the residents in this town are African-American and have seen an increase in cancer within their town; they believe it is due to the 14 chemical plants nearby. The residents have complained for many years about their health problems to the industry, and to state and federal agencies, but have seen no improvement. Now that they have an EPA administrator to represent them, they have high hopes of becoming a Superfund site, so that they can all live a healthier life.

The title of this article uses really controversial words to catch attention. The very first word “toxic” automatically stands out to the audience, because it brings up images associated with: danger, death, poison, and many more harmful things. The thought of people being an experiment is also headlined. Humans are not used to being scientifically experimented on with toxins, usually animals are. This comes across as inhumane. The quote “People of Mossville ‘are like an experiment,’” was quoted from Wilma Subra, a chemist. Subra does not provide any information as to how the residents are like experiments; it is more of an opinion. Because of this, the title does not portray the issue of the article very well; I suggest this title to be changed to “Mossville fighting to be a Superfund region.”

The author separated this article into three sections: health problems that are associated with Mossville residents, the power plant boom, and Mossville fears. They introduced the conflict first, then gave a little history, and concluded the article with no solution. This article is trying to persuade people into believing that the power plants are affecting the health of residents in Mossville and that this community needs to be turned into a Super Region.

The length of the article is quite long; it is about 2 pages back and front when printed. There are three pictures of local residents with their quotes and a video that is three minutes long. The pictures of the residents are not graphic in any way, but it helps the audience to associate an image with the conflict which makes the problem more realistic and relatable. The video does contain some good footage. The news reporter interviews some “experts,” local residents, and shows pictures of the chemical plants. There was a brief interview with the opposing side which lasted about 3 seconds. There were a total of 8 sources used in this article; 3 were local residents, 1 was the EPA, 1 was Robert Bullard (author of Dumping in Dixie and director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center), 1 was the Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, 1 was Larry DeRoussel (executive director of Lake Area Industry Alliance), and 1 was Wilma Subra (chemist from Iberia, Lousisiana). The author of this article did try to get more of the companies to speak on camera, but they didn't want to, so therefore, there was only one source from the opposing side. The video also didn’t contain all the sources that were listed in the article and even had some sources that weren’t listed in the article.

This article is based on emotional appeal. The video gave the residents the most time to voice their opinions so that the audience could hear mostly the negative impacts. The very end of this article even ends with Dorothy Felix, one of the residents of Mossville saying, "This is the first time I've had a little hope in EPA." The audience automatically sympathizes with these residents because everyone has known someone who has died from cancer and therefore can relate to this situation. With so many deaths and more cancer, the articles then talks about how no industries have tried to help or listen to these residents. Lisa Jackson, the first African-American administrator of the EPA is trying to help this community become a Superfund site. With her help, this community has a chance of federal funding for cleanup in Mossville. This community has "hope."

Overall, this article is in favor of the resident’s point of view. There are 8 sources in this news article and only one of them was from the opposing side. How can no one else from the opposing side want to comment and feel that DeRousseau's comments were enough, when DeRousseau's statement was only 3 seconds long on video and 2 sentences long on paper? Is that truly enough information to represent the opposing side's point of view? No, it is not. The video accompanying the article was 3 minutes and 7 seconds long, but only the opposing side held three seconds of the entire video. If the other companies were not willing to be put on camera, why not give DeRousseau more time to speak or explain himself? Perhaps this reporter could have done more research and try to prove what the experts were saying. For example, when Wilma Subra stated that the statistics were misleading because they covered a large area and Mossville was only a small area, the reporter should have researched that to see whether this was true or not. The many pictures of the local residents and the title of this article positively show that this article is biased. The main concern now for this community is to become a Superfund site. The investigation is still happening and we can only hope these residents get what they deserve.