What the green colour refers to? What is the correct meaning of ‘green’? Nature or money?
Green is the color of nature. It symbolizes growth, harmony, freshness, and fertility. Green has strong emotional correspondence with safety. Dark green is also commonly associated with money.
Green has great healing power. It is the most restful color for the human eye; it can improve vision. Green suggests stability and endurance. Sometimes green denotes lack of experience; for example, a 'greenhorn' is a novice. In heraldry, green indicates growth and hope. Green, as opposed to red, means safety; it is the color of free passage in road traffic.
Use green to indicate safety when advertising drugs and medical products. Green is directly related to nature, so you can use it to promote 'green' products. Dull, darker green is commonly associated with money, the financial world, banking, and Wall Street.
Dark green is associated with ambition, greed, and jealousy.
Yellow-green can indicate sickness, cowardice, discord, and jealousy.
Aqua is associated with emotional healing and protection.
Olive green is the traditional color of peace.
Isn’t it overwhelming? Green – the colour of nature with is associated with hope, peace, joy, disinterest, harmony; and green that refers to money, profit, benefit, self-interest, chaos.
So does the term ‘greenwashing’ refer to environment and ecology or is it rather the other way of maximizing the profit?
Source Watch website questioning the 21st century phenomenon of combined techniques of marketing, PR and advertising, better known as ‘greenwashing’, tries to capture the term in a frame of a definition –
Greenwashing is the unjustified appropriation of environmental virtue by a company, an industry, a government, a politician or even a non-government organization to create a pro-environmental image, sell a product or a policy, or to try and rehabilitate their standing with the public and decision makers after being embroiled in controversy.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greenwashing
The Greenpeace alone seems to be especially touched by corporations’ good-will movement. They stay sceptical with regards for rapid set ecological agenda by dozens of transnational corporation which made their fortune polluting the biosphere. In first sentence to The Greenpeace Book of Greenwash , it is stated – ‘A leader in ozone destruction takes credit for being a leader in ozone protection’. Then comes as follow:
A giant oil company professes to take a ‘precautionary approach” to global warming. A major agrochemical manufacturer trades in a pesticide so hazardous it has been banned in many countries, while implying the company is helping to feed the hunger. A petrochemical firm uses the waste from one polluting process as raw material for another, and boasts that this is an important recycling initative. A company cuts timber from natural rainforests, replaces it with plantations of a single exotic species, and calls the project “sustainable forest development’.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/5/59/GP_Book_of_Greenwash.pdf
Finally Greenpeace clarifies the term:
This is a GREENWASH, where transnational corporations (TNCs) are preserving and expanding their markets by posing as friends of the environment and leaders in struggle to eradicate poverty.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/5/59/GP_Book_of_Greenwash.pdfSo is ‘the green’ the new black? Everyone wants to wear it ? Is it a kind of new fashion – to be in you have to be green? Can anyone exist nowadays without declaring deep loyalty with environmental values? Why do big brands have to wear a green mask if they do not identify themselves with the ideas of the Earth and natural resources protection? Where does this obsession of being green come from? And in the long run is it important at all?
No comments:
Post a Comment