The Lorax

The Lorax, a classic Dr. Seuss book, has been turned into a Hollywood movie. It is currently playing in theatres right now. But what children and some adults might fail to realize is that Dr. Seuss originally wrote The Lorax as propaganda.  Some of Dr. Seuss’ underlying themes are “anti-pollution, anti-greed, and anti-logging (Fenkl, 2001).”  The book has evoked a strong response from the timber industry, requesting it be removed from elementary school libraries and reading lists. It is popular because “it sticks  with readers at many different levels in the same way that a good parable sticks with us and survives repeated reflection as we become progressively older and (we hope) wiser (Fenkl, 2001).”

I think it is an interesting message and is packaged in a way that children will understand it. It brings to light important environmental issues today, such as sustainability. Children need to realize the effects that they have on the environment and that even they are capable of helping the environment. As a country, we have gotten into the mind set of getting as much as we can and using as much as we can, but The Lorax shows the effects of greed and will hopefully help children and even adults understand how our actions effect the world we live in.

The original book by Dr. Seuss was released in 1971, when environmental issues were not main stream or important. The movie reintroduces The Lorax at a time when the message will be received better than before.  Also, as previously mentioned, it is also a great way to introduce the topic of environmentalism to children.  However, even Universal has received complaints from both sides of the movement over the message of the movie: those who complain the animated movie aims to "indoctrinate children and turn them into millions of little eco-warriors," and those who question whether the marketing and promotional tie-ins, including one for an SUV, are sufficiently eco-friendly (Rome, 2012)."  There was even controversy about the message Universal was sending at the red carpet premiere, where attendees received potted plants upon exiting the theater, but some complained there were no recycling bins for the complimentary plastic bottles of soda given to viewers (Rome, 2012). Many more people complain that Universal teamed with Mazda and not an electric car, and there are also complaints that the trailer and the website do not display the environmental message and that Universal needs to stay true to Dr. Seuss' lesson (Rome, 2012). But in Hollywood, it is still about making money, regardless of the theme of the movie.

Here is the movie trailer:

"An adaptation of Dr. Seuss' classic tale of a forest creature who shares the enduring power of hope. The animated adventure follows the journey of a boy as he searches for the one thing that will enable him to win the affection of the girl of his dreams. To find it he must discover the story of the Lorax, the grumpy yet charming creature who fights to protect his world.”

See the reviews and movie times for Tallahassee here.

Has anyone else seen the movie yet? What did you think about it? Do you think it is a good example of  what’s really going on?


Sources:

Fenkl, Heinz. (2001). The secret alchemy of Dr. Seuss. Retrieved from http://www.endicott-studio.com/rdrm/forseus.html

Rome, Emily. (2012). 'The Lorax' targeted for its green credentials. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/01/entertainment/la-et-lorax-20120301

Environmental Comics

Many forms of media have embraced the issue of global warming and environmental issues. One popular comic strip, by Neil Wagner, is called "What on Earth?" Here are a few examples of his comics that express many controversial environmental topics. More from "What on Earth?" can be found on their facebook page.

Neil Wagner isnt the only one talking about environmental issues. Here is a comic from the International Herald Tribune, Cartoonist Patrick Chappatte also portrays environmental issues using popular media. Find more at globalcartoon.com.

Green Marketing and Green Advertising

Pop Culture icon, Kermit the Frog, is often quoted as saying "It's not easy being green!" And this translates across corporate America, too! Being "GREEN" is a current trend of corporate marketing and advertising. Corporations attempt to associate their products and identity with environmental values and images, and even advertise their products as having a minimal impact on the environment. But how “green” are these companies really?

In an article in the Boston Globe, Beth Daley discusses the new Chevy Tahoe Hybrid which was named ‘Green Car of the Year’ by an automobile magazine. The Chevy Tahoe Hybrid, which only gets 20 miles per gallon, is an example of “green washing” - the marketing of faux green products (Daley, 2008).

The article also states another common product that claims to be good for the environment, the household cleaner Simple Green. However, one of Simple Green's key ingredients, butyl cellosolve, is the same toxic solvent found in traditional all-purpose cleaners. The label even cautions users not to "dispose of . . . near storm drains, oceans, lakes or streams." (Daley, 2008).

The Federal Trade Commission has the authority to investigate false marketing claims, but has not updated its ‘green guides’ since 1998. The agency has not issued any decisions about green marketing in the past five years. Too many customers trust companies’ claims. According to a survey released by the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Cone LLC, about 47 percent of respondents said they trusted companies to tell them the truth in environmental messaging, and 45 percent said they believed companies are accurately communicating information about their impact on the environment. But, when it comes to advertising correct environmental information, there is virtually "zero enforcement," said Scot Case of TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, a consulting company based in Philadelphia and Ottawa. Last year, his company conducted a study that found that 99 percent of 1,018 green advertising claims of everyday consumer products could be misleading. (Daley, 2008).

I think it is absurd that companies can claim anything they want on their products without having to prove it, especially environmental claims. A company can claim that their product is “nature’s finest” or “uses no chemicals” but the government does not require the company to be telling the truth. If there is no regulation to what can be said, how is the consumer to know what actually is in the product that they are buying? There really is no way. It is kind of a sticky situation because environmental information campaigns encourage people to buy organic foods, use less, recycle more, and be more environmentally friendly. So consumers who react to these advertisements then go buy these products that claim to be “green” which may actually not be any better for the environment, just more expensive for the consumer. Are environmental information campaigns really to benefit the environment, or could they just be a conspiracy to perpetuate this trend of purchasing environmentally friendly, ‘green’ products?

“What’s really going on?”

Sources:

Daley, Beth. (2008). Not As Green As They Claim To Be. The Boston Globe, May 14, 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/05/14/not_as_green_as_they_claim_to_be/?page=full