I read an article called "Save
the World in 2014: Don't Go Shopping", Jennifer Amanda Jones, online about
charity products and campaigns like the ethos water at Starbucks and the win
one give one campaign by Betty Crocker.
I thought the article raise some
interesting points about the charity campaigns. The article takes a very
aggressive stance against those types of campaigns trying to relate the idea of
a bigger picture by vaguely discrediting them. The author tells you the
campaign" might " have hidden agendas or that the money they give is
not worth the damage the product contributes to the bigger global problem.
Jones then turns the burden to the audience by letting the reader know that is
our responsibility to make the right choices, the right choices being investing
our money in something other than a three dollars bottle of water. I think she
raises interesting points but I feel a little like I’m being lectured for
misbehaving.
You can always check out the article for yourselves:
After my death into the green thinking I read an article “
Little Green Lies”, by Ben Elgin, to get submerged into the hot topic of
companies going “ green”
This article has started off as a story of man having a
green company that ran us ran on solar and water turbine power, but as his
schemas are grew the idea of a totally green company became less like a
possibility. The interim had me hooked I could understand this man’s struggle.
Having a great idea and having it work in theory and in the real world, but at
a little pressure and it all comes crashing down. I can understand the, I can
relate to him even though I have never thought of running a green ski resort.
The emotional aspects of seeing your dreams not pan out is something I
understand, which persuades me to take a more sympathetic view on why green
energy can’t be cost effective and helpful to the environment. I was totally
engaged and hooked onto what I was being sold then…I got statistics. It was
like a light switch all emotions and method turned off so I could read some
numbers about how much a company was claiming to do for the environment. My mom
wasn’t old logic mode reading stats and comparing companies then the mountain
ski resort stars turned again. This pattern continued throughout the rest of
the article, it was like having a whiplash from my right and left sides of my
brain the point where I stopped caring. My brain was tired of going from the
emotional psychological in 0.001 seconds. When the writer didn’t have the two
together I was at a point where it didn’t matter I had already checked out.
I thought the style of the article could have been great.
Start your reader off of the story, throw them a few facts, and tied them
together quickly and go from there with the rest of your argument. With a solid
base and the emotional and logical then I’ll trust your argument because it’s
not soulless numbers after percent or overly emotional baseless statements. You
have a whole well paced argument. I would say there were good points but
honestly I can’t figure out how it all tied together.
If you want to figure out to check it out:
Works cited:
“ Little Green Lies-Businessweek.” Elgin, Ben. Businessweek.com. N.p.28
October 2007. Web. 21 January 2014.
“Save the World in 2014: Don't Go Shopping." Jones,
Jennifer Amanda. NPQ- nonprofit quarterly.com.N.P.15 January 2014. Web. 21 January
2014.
