"More then Tissues in a Box of Kleenex" addresses an interesting form of scientific communication, particularly environmental awareness. Greenpeace and Kleenex have been arguing for the past three years about Kleenex's destruction of forests to make tissues. Some people have been planting pieces of paper inside Kleenex boxes informing buyers about Kleenex's deforestation. Greenpeace does not claim responsibility for these actions, but the article leads the reader to believe that Greenpeace supporters are probably behind the acts.
I found this tactic interesting because it spreads environmental awareness in an unconventional way. Deforesting done by Kleenex is not something that I have seen regularly on the news, and interest groups spreading this information can make it more relevant. The group has already garnered enough attention to be covered by the Washington Post. Even though this article focuses mostly on how the actual message got inside the box, it still is spreading some form of environmental awareness by sharing the group’s message.
Although this information is provided by activists and not scientists, it will probably influence consumer's choice.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I worked for Greenpeace 2 years ago in Washington, D.C. I wasn't at all a part of the "Kleercut" campaign, but I did see it advertised throughout the office. The fact that this campaign is still being talked about and talked about more seriously says a lot about the nature and pace of science communication.
The details of this environmental initiative are relayed in depth as the subject matter becomes increasingly relevant and appropriate. While the field of science is extremely fast-paced, maybe the field of science communication is more sensitive to and focused on those recurrent and interwoven discussions. While a scientific discovery can become outdated in a matter of months or days, this article proves that being an effective science communicator requires one to be aware of previous issues and how they relate to the present circumstance.
This article is very relevant to our topic discussion on nature and very interesting too!
Reading this article, I immediately note the argumentative form the piece has taken, a subjective view so to say.
It also shows that an effective science communicator is one that is persistent and aware of the changes and effects that take place on a daily basis. Science doesn't just change, as said in lecture, it is a process. And from this article, we can see that this process is indeed changing (eg. via new forms of "shopdropping"). The pace of science communication is increasing, especially since nature and "going green" have become the newest trends and issues to focus on.
I have recently discussed the concept of “green marketing” in another class, I think that it could be looked at as a form of scientific communication. Their are several investment firms that give clients the option of putting together a “green portfolio” meaning that everything they have invested in makes a conscious effort to protect the environment. Although, some were skeptic about the profits however for the most part the profits of these portfolios are no different from a regular one.
I think this article raises an important issue on ethics in the domain of science, particularly in activist practices. While this campaign isn't overtly common as to be detrimental to Kleenex by directly making appeals to consumers, it does have the potential to have a negative affect on the organization.
While Greenpeace, or whatever organization ultimately claims responsibility, may see their efforts as valid and justified, we must understand that corporations have greater legal standing than the forests these activists are trying to protect. As such, they must make sure their efforts are not in violation of these rights, or face not only negative publicity for their activism, but potentially lose would-be supports due to public sentiment of vigilantism.
Thus I believe that the rights and ethical values of both Kleenex and Greenpeace must be evaluated before we make judgments on either organization. As the two organizations have been in discussions regarding this topic for a great amount of time, it is my position that activists should continue to work within the system in order to achieve the greatest results and gain both greater respect and validity for their organization’s cause.
If people keep attacking Kleenex for their destruction of forests and this becomes an issue picked up by the media in more depth, it could revolutionize Kleenex. Kleenex would be driven to a green market, therefore trying to portray its business as "environmentaly friendly," and hopefully, by doing so, it will change its practices. Poland Spring recently has changed its water bottle so it uses less plastic and this has a positive effect in this day and age on consumer consumption. Kleenex could follow this tatic by either showing commercials that portray a) Kleenex using "green" practices or b) advertising Kleenex giving money to an environmental org, buying carbon credits, planting trees or anything else along those lines.
Therefore, in this case, public reaction can have a positive influence on industry and how it interacts with the environment.
It's interesting to note the lengths that "lay-experts" would go to get across thier messages. As aforementioned, the shop dropping technique of science communication highlights the need for the general public to be aware of what scientifically sound information they are receiving as well as ever-changing modes of knowledge distribution.
Relative to the article, Danielle raises an important argument in questioning the realm of ethics in the scientific domain. Corporate interests constanly conflict with ethical practices, and compromise is essential to satisfy the underlying service objectives of both parties. Hence, people can worry about Kleenex sanitization while knowing that the producers of their product have environmental awareness.
I loved reading this article! The people who decided to put little notes inside Kleenex boxes are very clever because it is definitely a good way of engaging directly with consumers. I am curious to know whether the leaflets were put in the boxes at stores or during the manufacturing process. It is good to spread public awareness about certain issues and whether or not it was workers for Greenpeace, putting leaflets in Kleenex boxes is a funny and clever tactic. It would be interesting to see if the leaflets really did make a difference—if there starts to be a decline in the number of consumers purchasing Kleenex.
Wow! this was an interesting paper. A very ingenious yet very effective way of getting people's attention. I feel, if a message has to be spread then sometimes the oddest way of displaying them are shockingly the most effective. Most importantly it relates to the nature discussion we had in class. Its one thing to read and learn about excessive deforestation, and its another thing to find a leaf of a tree inside a kleenex box. It really gets you thinking about the effect you are having on the global scheme. Therefore it definitely adds that personal experience with nature element which is so crucial to really understanding and appreciating nature, rather than just reading about it.
What struck me about this article as particularly interesting was not only the idea (which previous to this article, I confess to not thinking of, and as I am sitting here at my computer with a box of Puffs tissues next to me, I am beginning to question whether all tissue manufacturers are guilty) that tissue production was contributing to global climate change, but that Canada was suffering from deforestation as well, another idea that I confess to giving little thought to up until now. After completing our first assignment concerning deforestation in Brazil, it is rather interesting to think of deforestation in Canada in this “new light” (or deforestation in Canada in general, for that matter). Most of the information that we, as general citizens, hear and read about deforestation is related to tropical forests around the equator, which may at times seem to be very distant. Canada, on the other hand, which I don’t believe we hear or read quite as much about, is just a short drive away, and it is very interesting and disturbing at the same time to think that the forests there are also being destroyed. Overall, this is a very brief article that in fact brings up many interesting points.
Post a Comment