environment! (#10)

In class, I remember being extremely adamant about the fact that nature and environment were two completely different things.  The huge riot that ensued consisted of one side (the side I agreed with) stating that nature was something completely untouched by humans, and that environment was made up of everything else surrounding us.  The other side argued that even if you take a tree out of its natural habitat, the tree itself doesn’t change, and thus remains nature, although part of it has been altered (which in my opinion, would make it “environment”).

I chose the Toyota ad that you posted for us for this particular blog.  Besides the fact that I thought the hand as roots was rather creative (enforcing the importance of the tie between man and nature in order for the survival of both), it used the terms “nature” and “environment” in the ways that I agreed with.

In linking it with what we learned from the article on Ecocriticism, I found it to be undeniably related to “reform environmentalism”.  The article states that, “Reform environmentalism informs a new kind of consumer piety, with its sometimes extraordinary language – such that buying a slightly less destructive make of car becomes ‘saving the planet’” (2).  That is exactly what is happening in the ad.  It creatively advertises the idea of “zero emissions,” while still wording it in a way that resembles fine print.  It doesn’t claim to have reached a state of zero emission, yet it is worded so that if someone were to read it off the bat without looking closely, they may think that that is what is happening as a direct result of Toyota’s technologies.

On an unrelated note, I think that most people will see the word “nature” and be more inclined to do something in hopes of feeling less guilty.  By telling people that they are “preserving the delicate balance between man and nature” by buying a Toyota, I think people are more likely to purchase one.