“Trees, how many of ’em do we need to look at?”
– Ronald Reagan
Orangutan (n.) – 1690s, from Dutch orang-outang (1631), from Malay (Austronesian) orang utan, literally “man of the woods,” from orang “man” + utan, hutan “forest, wild.”
This year sometime in August, Greenpeace released an animated short titled “Rang-Tan” in the hopes of bringing attention to the destruction of precious habitats and homes of Indigenous Peoples by forest destroyers and the palm-oil industry.
In this short (narrated by actress Emma Thompson), a little girl is surprised to suddenly find an orangutan sheltering in her bedroom and does not know what to do. Clearly befuddled and upset by the creature’s behavior, as it (she?) ransacks her room in its curiosity, the little girl shoos the animal away but not before asking a very important question: Why was it in her bedroom? As the girl and the baby orangutan lock gazes, its story is told of how her home was annihilated by the deforestation team and how her mother was killed/murdered in the process (alongside probably a lot more creatures). Learning the tragic reason, the little girl is so moved that she swears to the baby “rang-tan” to fight to save its home and to share its story with the world so others will fight too. The short ends with a hopeful message and a call to arms. Sign the petition.
However, this short did not become “viral” until recently when “Iceland (the food retailer), which pledged in April to go palm-oil free by the end of this year, wanted to use the Greenpeace film for its annual Christmas campaign, and it reserved 500,000 pounds, or almost $650,000, of broadcast time” to release the short as part of a Christmas advert. (1) And now, despite not appearing even once on television, this advertisement stands to become the most popular Christmas advertisement to date.
Now, while the storyline might seem harmless enough to the average viewer, the commercial wasn’t allowed to air on British TV because it was deemed “too political” – meaning it somehow violated laws against political advertising. The term “banned” was then thrown around by various individuals, including Iceland Foods, (despite not being the legally correct term, as Clearcast does not have the authority to ban the ad), garnering the ignited ire of the people on numerous social media platforms in Britain, leading , in turn, to the creation and signing of a petition that demanded the decision to “ban”/block the advert be overturned.
In the United States, we might be confused as to why/how a political advert may be “banned,” especially after our country just recently spent millions on political advertisements during the midterm elections. However, in contrast to our ability to do so freely due to the (for now) protected free-speech rights referenced in the First Amendment of the Constitution, parties in Britain are denied the opportunity to advertise political messages, due to the 1950s prohibition of political advertising. And this regulation on political advertisements also “applies to nongovernmental organizations and other groups, unless the ad is for a charitable cause.” (1)
But is Iceland’s ad “too political?”
“Richard Walker…said in a telephone interview that the company’s ad was neither too aligned with Greenpeace nor political. “It has a very strong environmental message, but it’s not a political ad,” Mr. Walker said, noting that the purpose of the ad was to raise awareness of deforestation, not to condemn palm oil specifically”. (1)
That should settle it, right?
“But as Clearcast said, the problem is not so much what the ad contains as who made it. “Because the ad is based on material made by Greenpeace and has been promoted on the Greenpeace website for some time, Greenpeace need to demonstrate they are not a political advertiser,” Chris Mundy, the managing director of Clearcast, said in a statement on Monday. (1)
So, after this response, heartened by the response of the people and armed with a petition signed by almost a million people, Iceland now seeks to distance itself and the commercial from Greenpeace in order to ask Clearcast to reconsider its decision. Iceland Food Ltd. also plans “to bring the endangered species issue straight to the streets, where it will set loose a life-size, robotic orangutan among the hordes of Christmas shoppers on Oxford Street in London and in other locations.” (1)
However, Iceland’s advert has also garnered the ire of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil.
The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil is an industry group created in 2004 by governments and producers to improve the perception and marketability of the oil. And due to palm oil now being used in everything from chocolate to shampoo, and farmers having been “accused of illegally using slash-and-burn methods to clear land for plantations, destroying rainforests and animal habitats as well as compounding water and air pollution” – the RSPO has also been created “to monitor the industry and set standards for sustainable production.” (2)
“The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which includes producers and buyers, said boycotting palm oil doesn’t stop the destruction of rainforests, and Iceland should instead work with the industry to ensure there are sustainable standards for any of the oils and fats it consumes. Retailers should not simplify the issue of deforestation to use it as a marketing gimmick, RSPO Chief Executive Officer Darrel Webber said in an interview from Borneo.” (2)
In turn, Iceland Foods Ltd. promptly responded with: “We have not removed palm oil from our own label food as ‘a marketing gimmick’, but to raise public awareness of the continuing destruction of the rainforest,” Richard Walker, Iceland’s managing director, said in an email. “By doing so we hope to apply pressure to the palm oil industry to deliver the genuinely sustainable product that it has long been promising.” (2)
It seems like it’s a ‘RSPO’s word against Iceland’s’ kind of situation. A situation where no real answer exists and where only time will tell who the “winner” in this stare off will be. We can only hope Iceland’s call to arms is genuine, even if it may be part of a ‘marketing gimmick’, and trust that RSPO’s monitoring and standards will prove effective in this fight for a certified sustainable product and the restriction/eradication of deforestation.
But we must ask ourselves: What about Greenpeace?
It struck me as strange and maybe slightly disturbing that, instead of signing the petition to actually save these orangutans and their environments, the mass of people moved by the short film chose instead to sign a petition to overturn a decision on an arguably moot point (due to the fact that millions of people have already watched the ad on Youtube as soon as they heard of the issue). Now, this is of course only a suspicion and I might be mistaken but, due to the fact no one has reported how this controversy has affected Greenpeace’s initial petition and that Iceland’s ad substituted the end with a message of their own, I, for now, hold the opinion that the ad controversy caused people to be angry (even if for a while) at the wrong thing/person and that, as a result, Greenpeace’s original message was slightly weakened.
However, there is no denying that “ads such as Iceland’s can only help.” “It [the ad] plugs into grassroots shoppers and gets that message across that we have a choice over what we buy,” [Rewcastle Brown] says. “And the publicity’s great. I’ve been banging on about this for 10 years but I had to damn well get a story that overthrew a government before I could get anywhere.” (3)
Iceland’s Christmas campaign, its message, and its solution still stand. Mechanical primates are an effective way of promoting the cause, especially because animatronics are all we will be left with if we do not control deforestation and the pollution of the environment. And, while boycotting palm oil products (which aren’t that healthy to consume, to begin with) may offer us only a temporary solution – it is a solution. After all, as it was once written:
“These folk are hewers of trees and hunters of beasts; therefore we are their unfriends, and if they will not depart we shall afflict them in all ways that we can.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion
Dr. Birutė Galdikas, “a primatologist who began pioneering field studies of orang-utans in 1971, and has worked with them for the past four decades, says we can make a difference. “Try to avoid palm oil as much as possible, in food and detergents that you use, and toothpaste.” Until we get truly sustainable palm oil, which may be on the horizon, I’d recommend reading supermarket labels, product labels and staying away from the wrong oils.” That can be tricky. The WWF regularly updates a list of retailers and producers and their respective palm oil credentials. Much of the palm oil we consume appears on our shelves as processed “derivatives”; the website Ethical Consumer recommends learning the words “palm”, “stear”, “laur”, and “glyc” to better recognize more than half of fatty acids compounds. Iceland has committed to phasing out the oil in all its own-brand products by the end of the year.” (3)
“Man is who dies when all the forests are all gone.”
― Anthony T. Hincks
“The longer one spends with them, the longer one realizes that the three percent difference in DNA between humans and orang-utans actually doesn’t explain who they are,” says Galdikas. “They’re more like humans than anyone could imagine. Their motions are similar, their intellects are similar. Obviously, they have the intellect of a child — they don’t read, they don’t write, they don’t speak, but nevertheless, they’re so similar to us that if humans have a soul, orang-utans must have one too.” (3)
““Come to Borneo and Sumatra,” says Galdikas. “Once you visit the habitat countries you are helping preserve orang-utans and other wildlife. It increases the importance of these animals through tourism, and tourism is a powerful money-generating industry. Or donate to Orang-utan Foundation.”” (3)
Some people might agree with Ronald Reagan’s thoughts on preservation of nature and its inhabitants (and that includes humans) and that’s their choice but I wish to believe that there are more us in this world who are a little like Bauvard:
“We need to save the forests. I have a big warehouse we can store them in.” ― Bauvard, Some Inspiration for the Overenthusiastic
And now, I leave you, dear reader, after this lengthy post with a final message – the original message of an animated short created by creative agency Mother, directed by Salon Alpin, and produced by Oscar-winning Passion Animation Studios. (4)
“Do not avert your eyes.
It is important
that you see this.
It is important that you feel
this.”
― Kamand Kojouri
“When Greenpeace asked me to narrate ‘Rang-tan,’ I didn’t hesitate. For too long, big brands have been getting away with murder…By making a noise, demanding answers and forcing change, we can stop feeling sorry.” – Emma Thompson (4)
-L.L.L.
P.S. Happy Thanksgiving!
-
“U.K. Ad Highlighting Plight of Orangutans Is Deemed Too ‘Political’ to Air” by Iliana Magra
- “Viral Orangutan Ad on Deforestation Slammed by Palm Industry” by Anuradha Raghu.
-
“How the world is waking up to palm oil in the wake of banned Iceland orang-utan advert” by Samuel Fishwick
- “Emma Thompson Narrates Greenpeace Animated Short to Lobby Against ‘Dirty’ Palm Oil” by Todd Spangler
Wombats Poop Weird
I suppose this is not really news. I would assume that wombats didn’t begin pooping in cubes once Laurel Hamers figured it out, but it is interesting nevertheless. You know those big muscular giant squirrels from Australia? Oh, you know these things…
Well, as it turns out, their poops are weird. Weird how you might ask. Well, you almost certainly did not ask but I am going to tell you anyways. Well, they poop in cubes. Here look!
Isn’t it so wonderfully vaguely cubical? I think so. I know when I first read the article that spoke about wombat poop I must admit I was thinking that it was shockingly irrelevant. What a crock of bull…. never mind.
According to Hamer the evolutionary reason for this particular kind of poop is that wombats mark their territory with it. They really need their poop to cling to a rock and not roll off, which is why they aren’t as cylindrical as other mammals.
Mechanical Engineer David Hu said “cubic shapes in nature are very unusual” because they require energy to be created and the intestines of a wombat are fairly similar to the intestines of other mammals. This brings to question…Why in the world are their poops so cube? Well, first of all, wombats intestines expand to two-to-three times their original length when they are filled with poop. This creates regions that are stiffer, and regions that are softer. Those stiffer edges of their intestines make those distinct edges that you can clearly see on the wombats now ICONIC poops.
So there you go. You’ve been blessed with the knowledge you didn’t know you needed. That’s why wombats poop the way they do.
Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!
Eytan
Source:https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-wombats-poop-cubes?tgt=nr
The Junction Journal 