Starbucks Attempts Green Business Strategy

Recently, going green has become an extremely hot topic among companies. Greenwashing is one way companies attempt to go green. "Greenwashing, a pejorative term derived from the term ‘whitewashing,’ was coined by environmental activists to describe efforts by corporations to portray themselves as environmentally responsible in order to mask environmental wrongdoings” (MacDonald, 2007, para. 2). It is every company’s responsibility to keep the environment clean, because the government doesn’t make a sufficient effort to encourage them. Starbucks is one of the companies that are greenwashing. Their profits rose incredibly from 2002 to 2003, but they didn’t spend any substantial money on green initiatives until 2006, when partnering with Global Green USA. Starbucks paid money to a “green” organization, but made little effort to actually make its own company green. They should put more money into making themselves green. A step in the right direction that they have already made is a new program that filters their profits down to the coffee bean growers who use environmentally friendly methods of growing. The motive behind this action is suspicious, however, because it didn’t occur until the United States renewed its membership to the International Coffee Organization after eleven years of not participating. Starbucks says they are going green, but they should be doing more if they want to deliver on the promise.

Firstly, the greenwashing methods of Starbucks are obvious. Starbucks claims to have made a strong contribution by making their cups ten percent recyclable, according to Melanie Warner (2004). While this is a significant impact, due to the one and a half billion cups Starbucks uses annually, ten percent is a very low number and hardly a sacrifice when compared to what should be done. They are using only ten percent recycled material because the recycled material costs more. The process of turning trash into usable paper products is more expensive than using virgin tree fiber. When the price is almost five dollars for a cup of coffee, however, a twenty-cent investment in making the cup 100% recyclable is not so much to ask. It isn’t as if other companies haven’t had to make sacrifices for the environment. For example, McDonald’s uses recycled material in every part of its packaging and still manages to charge a reasonable price for its products (Warner, 2004). “Starbucks in recent years has become a target of a variety of advocacy groups who accuse the company of failing to live up to its self-professed goals of social responsibility” (Warner, 2004, para. 12). One way Starbucks is failing is by loading its stores with Fair Trade coffee signs across the world, and yet barely serving it at all. Fair Trade coffee is coffee that has been established as sustainable and fair to the farmers growing the coffee beans. The advertisements are showing the company as a strong supporter of the sustainable coffee, but in reality, it only makes up 0.4% of the global market (Starbucks commits to sustainable coffee supply, 2004). Something new that Starbucks is trying is an energy monitor on its equipment at select stores to discover how much energy they are using annually. This doesn’t mean the machines will be any greener, but they will have the potential of showing how much energy is being used, and therefore what contribution they are making to the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Narang, 2007).

Secondly, Starbucks made strange decisions with its profits when they jumped from 3.3 billion to 4.1 billion dollars in annual revenue. “More than 100 families are estimated to depend on coffee, and since prices began falling precipitously in 1998, the earnings of the 50-plus producer countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have halved from $10 billion a year to $5.5 billion” (Starbucks commits to sustainable coffee supply, 2004, para. 14). The evidence points to Starbucks having kept the profits to itself. If the parent company makes big gains, they should share it with their subsidiary. In addition, they should make sure coffee suppliers follow rules about harming the environment. Recently, “Starbucks has formed a partnership with a US development agency and environmental conservationists to help ensure a sustainable supply of high quality coffee from Latin America” (Starbucks commits to sustainable coffee supply, 2004, para. 1). They are doing this by promising higher prices to their suppliers if the suppliers can show that a fair amount of money is getting to the farmers, environmental rules are being followed, and human rights are being respected. It is good that they have made the agreement, but the reasons are a little suspicious. Until the United States rejoined the International Coffee Organization in 2004, Starbucks didn’t pay any money for environmental sustainability. Basically, they conveniently avoided paying any money until they were forced to by international standards set by the International Coffee Organization. According to the article, “Partnering to Address Climate Change,” by Ruben Aronin, Starbucks became a sponsor of Global Green USA in April, 2005, by donating a total of $150,000 over the course of two years. Global Green is an environmental non-for profit organization whose goals are to eliminate nuclear weapons, fight global warming, and protect clean water. Unfortunately, Global Green’s ideas for how to spend the money were to drive celebrities to the Oscars in hybrid vehicles, conduct redundant research in Antarctica, and assist in the reconstruction of New Orleans, none of which are exciting ways to sustain the environment.

Finally, Starbucks’ actions are good, but they should put more money into having a fair and green business of their own. One of the most upsetting actions in recent history is the change Starbucks has made from organic milk to genetically engineered milk. Organic or soy milk is still available upon request but it is discouraged to the extent of an additional 40 cents per order. The cows are injected with a growth hormone that unnaturally forces them to produce more milk. The downside is the engineered milk contains bacteria, antibiotics, and pus. Starbucks is likely to use genetically engineered coffee beans soon as well. “The reason coffee is genetically engineered is so the coffee fruits will all ripen at the same time. Right now they ripen at different times, so it has to be hand-picked. But if they’re sprayed with ethylene, they will all ripen at once” (Deen, 2002, para.12). Ways to save money are always of interest to Starbucks, despite the expensive prices charged to their customers. Starbucks is the largest coffee company in the world, and it should therefore lead the way for other companies to get themselves greener, if not for setting an example, then for the sake of morality. A reason Starbucks can be interested in battling global warming with going green is that temperature and rainfall determine how much coffee will be produced in a given area. Climate change could dramatically affect farmers’ ability to grow coffee beans, and without the beans, Starbucks wouldn’t exist. Fewer coffee beans means higher prices on coffee, and therefore less demand for their product.

Starbucks itself argues that partnering with Global Green USA shows its commitment to environmental sustainability. Starbucks also claims that it will identify opportunities to engage partners, customers, and the general public on Global Green’s messages to take action on climate change. If they can spend money getting Global Green to do their work for them, why not spend money on their own company to ensure that their products are environmentally sustainable, from the packaging to the coffee itself. Starbucks’ executives say that they are looking for ways to minimize their carbon emissions and environmental impacts (Narang, 2007). They measured their footprint only once, in 2003, but have opened twice as many stores since then, up to 6,281 in North America alone as of August, 2007. They decided to leave out a heavy 81,000 tons of carbon dioxide being produced by transporting coffee materials. Starbucks’ Environmental Affairs Manager says the company cannot take that kind of thing into account. They claim that more than 80% of their greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity usage, and 18% comes from roasting coffee before transporting it to stores, and the natural gas used in stores. In 2003, when the study was conducted, Starbucks was responsible for 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide every year. This is actually reasonably low compared to other businesses around the world, but doesn’t excuse the responsibility to bring emissions down further more. Starbucks responded in 2006 by increasing its use of wind power to 20% of the total energy use in North American stores, which saved the production of 62,000 tons of carbon dioxide.

In conclusion, some of Starbucks’ actions in going green are acceptable, but obviously their effort is not enough. Starbucks has attempted a greenwashing strategy by making cups ten percent recyclable but they really should go the extra mile and make them 100% recyclable. Fair Trade Coffee is good, but Starbucks should commit to it, instead of favoring the “unfair” brands. Power monitors on the coffee brewing equipment is a good way to measure energy consumption and should be expanded on. Starbucks didn’t share the profits they were making with coffee bean growers until the United States joined the International Coffee Organization, and they are making an effort with Fair Trade Coffee, but they should continue in the right direction, and promote Fair Trade Coffee better. The partnership Starbucks formed with Global Green isn’t enough, because it is essentially paying another company to work on environmental issues, and not making any effort for itself. The change to engineered milk is a step in the wrong direction, and so is charging extra money for organic milk. Stopping global warming should be on Starbucks’ agenda, because it directly interferes with their ability to grow the product necessary for them to run their business. The effort from Starbucks is getting better, but there are still problems to work through for a socially and environmentally sustainable business.

References

Aronin, R. (2006). Partnering to Address Climate Change. Social Responsibility Newsletter. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.starbucks.com/csrnewsletter/winter06/csrNGO.asp

Deen, S. (2002, March 25). USA: Starbucks Beans Not So Green. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2170&printsafe=1

Goldin, D. (2006, November 14). The Worm in the Coffee Bean: Starbucks’ Union-busting Greenwashing Tactics and the Corporate Social Responsibility Movement. Retrieved April 8, 2007, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-goldin/the-worm-in-the-coffee-be_b_34097.html

MacDonald, C. (2007). Greenwashing. http://www.businessethics.ca/greenwashing/

Narang, S. (2007, July 3). Carbon With That Latte? http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/07/02/starbucks-emissions-environment-biz-cz_sn_0703green_carbon.html

Starbucks commits to sustainable coffee supply. (2004, September 29). Food USA. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/printNewsBis.asp?id=55013

Warner, M. (2004, November 17). Starbucks continues to Greenwash with Weak Environmental Policy. Organic Consumers Association. Retrieved April 8, 2007, from http://www.organicconsumers.org/starbucks/recycle.cfm

Wikipedia

Using or citing Wikipedia has become a question in controversy in academic writings. Wikipedia has become one of most popular encyclopedias on the internet since it was put into the internet (Martin, 2008). Nowadays, Wikipedia is one of biggest encyclopedias on the internet, and familiar to many internet users as a source of wisdom easy to learn. However, because of overuse of Wikipedia, some schools decided to forbid using or citing Wikipedia in academic writings. It is a controversy, because Wikipedia helps students to get correct information, and common knowledge. There are three arguments that support forbidding using or citing Wikipedia, which are abuse of it, its untrustworthiness, and its interfering with another encyclopedias.

First, Wikipedia is connected to school cheating. Some students quote these words from Wikipedia without reference. The same things happen in my university too. I used to taken an English/ French history class, and we had to hand in a paper for English/ French history of about five pages in our own words. However, three or four students copied English/ French history backgrounds from Wikipedia. We are going school for learning, not getting good scores in the exams.

Second, Wikipedia is untrustworthy as a web encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a big difference with some other encyclopedias; that is, everyone can put words into and edit it. “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia compiled by the voluntary contributions of hundreds of writers and editors. Anyone can write an article and post it to Wikipedia; anyone else come along later and edit the article. It’s a kind of open, voluntary, work in progress. As such, it’s the most up-to-date encyclopedia you’ll find” (Lengel, 2007, para. 6). Therefore, if wrong information on the website, it makes many people to misunderstands.

Last, Wikipedia is a free access encyclopedia; therefore, it interfering with other reliable cost encyclopedias. Wikipedia has become popular because it’s free; everyone can access it and get some information, but it invades other encyclopedia; even though their information is uncertain. It is the most important fact that schools want to forbid using or citing Wikipedia.

In conclusion, schools should prohibit using or citing Wikipedia in academic writings because of its abuse, untrustworthiness, and it’s obstructing another encyclopedias. Wikipedia is famous as easy to get wisdom but also famous for its role in school cheating. Also, students overuse Wikipedia without making sure the information is correct. Furthermore, Wikipedia, which is untrustworthy as a free encyclopedia, disturbs other credible cost encyclopedias on the web. Schools can’t prohibit students from looking at Wikipedia to get information, but they should ban using or citing Wikipedia in academic writing.

Lengel, J. (2007, February 2). Teaching with Technology. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://www.powertolearn.com/articles/teaching_with_technology/article.shtml?ID=12

Martin, N. (2008, January 21). Wikipedia clamps down on ‘unreliable’ editors, Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/20/wiki20.xml

Argument Essay

Recently, going green has become an extremely hot topic among companies. "Greenwashing, a pejorative term derived from the term ‘whitewashing,’ was coined by environmental activists to describe efforts by corporations to portray themselves as environmentally responsible in order to mask environmental wrongdoings” (MacDonald, 2007, para. 2). It is every company’s responsibility to keep the environment clean. Starbucks’ profits rose incredibly from 2002 to 2003 but they didn’t spend any substantial money on green initiatives until 2006 when partnering with Global Green USA. When they made the agreement, the pledged $150,000 was not used very effectively. Starbucks paid money to a “green” organization, but made little effort to actually make its own company green. Starbucks says they are going green, but they are not doing enough.

Starbucks made strange decisions with its profits when they jumped from 3.3 billion to 4.1 billion dollars. I’m not sure why they didn’t share profits with growers, even though their gain became double or more. Also, I don’t know why growers’ profits decreased almost half, even though their parent company was making huge profits. In my frank opinion, Starbucks kept profits all to itself. If the parent company makes big gain, they should share it with their subsidiary. In addition, they should make sure coffee suppliers follow rules about harming the environment.

Starbucks’ action is good, but they should put more money into having a fair and green business. I’m glad to hear about Starbucks trying to “Go green,” because I drink coffee almost every day from there. However, I don’t know how much money they earn a year, but they should pay more, because they charge almost five dollars per cup of coffee. It is pretty expensive, I think. Also, Starbucks is one of the most famous coffee shops in the world, so they have to lead other companies to “Go green.”

Starbucks should do something else besides paying money. I didn’t know Starbucks was going green until I read the article. Starbucks is spread all over the world, so if they try going green with each shop, it will have a huge effect. Organizations want people to become aware of global warming by spending huge amounts of money. However, they don’t need to do that if companies like Starbucks donate.

Starbucks says that it is doing enough to match its responsibility, but they are wrong. Firstly, they claim to have made a strong contribution by making their cups 10% recyclable, according to Melanie Warner (2004). Ten percent is a lower number compared to many other companies that actually are making an effort to go green. Second, Starbucks uses genetically engineered milk, and will probably do the same thing to their coffee beans pretty soon, causing horrible environmental problems (Deen, 2002, para. 8). The move to genetically engineered milk is obviously a step backward from the organic milk they once used.

In conclusion, some of Starbucks’ actions in going green are acceptable, but obviously their effort is not enough. Starbucks didn’t share the profits they make with growers, they are paying not enough money, and Starbucks itself is not green at all. Starbucks is clearly one of the companies that are greenwashing. There are many facts that they are not going green, such as they are using genetically engineered milk, and using only 10% recyclable cups. They can’t say they’re going green until that improve these problems.

Deen, S. (2002, March 25). USA: Starbucks Beans Not So Green. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2170&printsafe=1

MacDonald, C. (2007). Greenwashing. http://www.businessethics.ca/greenwashing/

Warner, M. (2004, November 17). Starbucks continues to Greenwash with Weak Environmental Policy. Retrieved April 8, 2007, from http://www.organicconsumers.org/starbucks/recycle.cfm

Starbucks Sustains

In “Starbucks commits to sustainable coffee supply”, the author says, Starbucks knows their customers want a small amount of environmental effects to happen with their coffee, so they are giving economic help to coffee growers that aren’t harming the environment. Starbucks will pay more money for good quality coffee that comes from sustainable practice. The United States returned to the International Coffee Organization, which oversees coffee production in the world, after being gone 11 years. That the United States rejoined the group makes it much easier to fix problems with poor countries and their resident coffee farmers. One hundred million families depend on producing coffee worldwide, and they are not making a fair share yet. Starbucks represents the slow movement of America to environmental responsibility.

Starbucks is going to pay more money to make sure coffee suppliers follow rules about harming the environment. I didn’t know that making coffee hurts the environment until I read this article. So, it is very considerable topic, because Starbucks is the biggest coffee company in the world. This means they hurt a huge amount of the environment if they don’t care about it. The biggest company has to lead the way to “Go green”, so this Starbucks action is acceptable, but still they have to pay more to make good on their responsibility to lead the industry.

Starbucks made strange decisions with its profits when they jumped from 30 billion to 80 billion dollars. I’m not sure why they didn’t share profits with growers, even though their gain became double or more. Also, I don’t know why growers’ profits decreased almost half, even though their parent company was making huge profits. In my frank opinion, Starbucks kept profits all to itself. If the parent company makes big gain, they have to share it with their subsidiary.

It is suspicious that the United States was not a member of the International Coffee Organization for 11 years. I think United States and Starbucks are similar, because both are large and dominating but they were not cooperative to the environment. As Phil Bloomer, head of Oxfam International’s Make Trade Fair Campaign, said, the United States should have joined the International Coffee Organization much earlier. I was really surprised at the fact that the United States had not joined the Organization, because the biggest country has to lead the way to solve global economic problems like Starbucks. I’m glad the United States has finally noticed how important “Going green” and the environment are.

In conclusion, Starbucks and America are finally realizing they too must take care of the environment. There are three ways to solve this problem, which are for Starbucks to pay more to suppliers, Starbucks to share the profits they make with growers, and the United States to rejoin the International Coffee Organization. Starbucks should stop hurting the environment, instead of avoiding it by paying more money. Also, they should try to make a more comfortable situation for growers to make coffee beans. Finally, the United States should recognize its responsibility to protect the environment.

Starbucks commits to sustainable coffee supply (2004, September 29). Food USA. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/printNewsBis.asp?id=55013

Partnering to Adress Climate Change

According to the article, “Partnering to Address Climate Change,” by Ruben Aronin, Starbucks became sponsor of Global Green USA in April, 2005. Some famous actors joined this group, trying to reduce greenhouse gas. The amount Starbucks is paying will total $150,000, and will be used to educate people about climate change. Global Green USA’s agenda includes construction assistance for New Orleans and new buildings to make them not use much energy, transporting actors in hybrid vehicles, and doing research in Antarctica. Global Green USA has two other tasks besides global warming, which are eliminating nuclear weapons and protecting clean water. Starbucks and Global Green organization say “Go green,” but they are not doing enough.

Starbucks’ action is good, but they should pay more money. I’m glad to hear about Starbucks trying to “Go green,” because I drink coffee almost every day from there. However, I don’t know how much money they earn a year but they should pay more, because they charge almost five dollars per cup of coffee. It is pretty expensive, I think. Also, Starbucks is one of the most famous coffee shops in the world, so they have to lead other companies to “Go green.”

Starbucks should do something else besides paying money. I didn’t know Starbucks was going green until I read the article. Starbucks is spread all over the world, so if they try going green with each shop, it will have a huge effect. Organizations want people to become aware of global warming by spending huge amounts of money. However, they don’t need to do that if companies like Starbucks donate.

Global Green’s idea to drive celebrities to the Oscars with hybrid cars is not a solution. I was surprised at the idea of Global Green. Hybrid cars are good for the environment, but I don’t know why they’re only being used for the Oscars. It doesn’t make sense if everyone, not just celebrities, isn’t using hybrid cars. This action is good for advertisement, but not for helping ordinary people to switch to hybrid cars.

In conclusion, there are three improvements, which are that Starbucks should pay more money, Starbucks has to “go green” more actively, and Global Green should be concerned about how to spend money. Starbucks makes lots of money every day, so they can pay more to protect the environment. Starbucks has branches all over the world; they can teach about global warming to people all over the world. Finally, Global Green has to think about helping ordinary people to switch to hybrid cars; therefore, they should reconsider how to spend money.

Aronin, R. (2006). Partnering to Address Climate Change. Social Responsibility Newsletter. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.starbucks.com/csrnewsletter/winter06/csrNGO.asp

Controversial Problems in UN net summit

According to “Controversy blights UN net summit”, by Jo Twist, the World Summit tried to bring technology to poor countries, but it is not going well. They decided to hold a meeting in Tunisia at a conference they first had in Geneva two years earlier. At the end of the summit, they decided to meet again in a few years to discuss progress in bringing technology to poor countries. There is a problem with censorship and who is the controller of the net. No one has enough money to help poor countries to bring technology. United States representatives used the summit to argue for electronic freedom, as well as civil rights in Tunisia anf the rest of the world. Huang Ju, the Chinese representative, said in order to protect the government against criminal action, they need to censor the Internet. Yoshio Utsumi, international Telecommunications Union secretary, disagreed with Huang Ju. Utsumi said everyone is supposed to have freedom to use internet. He said that must be done to have an information society.

There are many controversial issues in this article, such as censorship on the internet, bringing technology to poor countries, and freedom of speech.

Censorship is good under certain conditions. If I have children, it is my responsibilities to tell them what they can or cannot see on the internet, not the governments. In addition to age of the child, the content is important for deciding on what to censor. For example, how to make a bomb should not be on the internet. Safety concerns are appropriate for the internet.

Bringing technology dose not help poor countries. Poor countries don’t need technology yet, but it depends on how poor they are. If they are starving to death, internet is not even worth discussing. If they are ready for education, developed countries should help poor countries. I don’t believe that developed countries are lacking the money to help poor countries, because I read an article about computers powered by a hand crank that were sent by someone to poor countries.

Everyone has to have freedom of speech. We have right to say anything, but some countries don’t have it. So we have to make the right for other people too. If there are bad things going on, we have to be able to change. Governments should not limit people’s freedom, because some countries’ people are free, and it is not fair that people are forced to do what they don’t want to do.

In conclusion, there are three controversial problems, which are that censorship is good in moderation, that technology should be brought only to countries that will use it to educate people, and that freedom of speech needs to be everyone’s right. Censorship keeps us safe from criminal activity, but should not limit our discovering the world. Technology is not as important as food, and developed countries need to realize that. Finally, freedom of speech is very important to make the world better.

Twist, J. (2005, November 18). “Controversy blights UN net summit.” BBC News. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4450474.stm

Premarital Sex

1. Introduction

Premarital sex is having sex at least one time before getting married. Do you have premarital sex? Do any of your friends? Should we be allowed to have sex at any age, or free to experiment from any religion? What is your opinion? There are many risks to having premarital sex, including sexually transmitted diseases if you don’t know your partner well enough, injuries, and unwanted pregnancy. Nevertheless, huge amounts of young people are having sex at early ages, before marriage. Some governments recommend having safe sex. Some religions strictly ban premarital sex; however, a lot of people don’t follow these religions. Too much constriction on premarital sex from religion is not good because some people break the rules. Some people who are restricted from having sex by their parents or their religions use it as a reason to go ahead and give it a try. “More than nine out of ten Americans, men and women alike, have had premarital sex...” (Premarital Sex, 2006, para.1). Premarital sex is widely done, it seems, even if it is not accepted.

2. Purpose

Our group, J. Piao, J. Yoo, M. Alsharif, and I decided to find out what Americans think about premarital sex. I wanted to examine the relationship between gender and when people start having sex. Also, I wanted to know the relationship between religion and premarital sex. Moreover, I wanted to examine the relationship between gender and who influenced their opinion about premarital sex.

3. Hypothesis

I had three hypotheses about having premartial sex in America. First, I believed that females started having sex earlier than males. Next, parents gave females influence on their opinion about having sex before marriage. Third, I believed that most Americans disagree with religions that ban sex before marriage.

4. Methods and Procedures

Our group asked thirty-nine people who are different gender, age, and religion in Carbondale to get a different opinion. Our intention was to ask the same amount of men as women, but unfortunately a group member misplaced one male survey participant’s data. In addition, we were looking for both people who have had sex and have not because we wanted to know how differently they are thinking about premarital sex. We prepared a survey that has ten questions. Those questions were almost all yes or no questions, so it was easy for respondents to answer the questions.

5. Data

Here is the result of survey http://eap1.blogspot.com/2008/03/practice-survey-results.html

6. Result

Actually, women started having sex earlier than men. 2 out of 15 males (13%) and 4 out of 12 females (33%) started having sex at under 15 years old. Also, most Americans, 10 of 15 males (67%) and 9 out of 12 females (75%), started having sex before 19 years old. Only 9 out of 19 (47%) males said that they agree with religions that ban premarital sex; on the other hand, 12 out of 20 (60%) females said so. Friends have the most influence on both male’s (37%) and female’s (40%) opinion about premarital sex.

7. Conclusion and Discussion

I believed that females started having sex earlier than males, and my prediction was correct because our survey showed almost the same number as my prediction. I wasn’t surprised at that fact, because I thought girls grew up earlier than boys in both ranges, physically and psychologically. However, I was surprised at the fact that friends have the greatest influence on Americans’ opinions about premarital sex. I expected that parents had more influence than friends for females, but it was not true. Also, our survey surprised me about the relationship between religion and premarital sex, because almost half of males and over half of females agreed with religions that ban premarital sex. I thought that most Americans disagreed with religions that ban sex before marriage.

If I can do this survey another time, I would like to ask a lot of older people, because most respondents were 19 to 25-year-old people. Also, if I ask older people, I will be able to get different opinions from younger people’s opinion about premarital sex. Some of our survey’s results couldn’t be used because some respondents checked none of the alternatives and some respondents checked more than two. Therefore, next time I would like to tell them to please check on ONE choice for each question, before giving the paper to respondents.

8. Reference

Premarital Sex: Almost Everyone's Doing It. (2006, December 19). CBS NEWS. Retrieved February 29, 2008, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/19/national/main2282940.shtml

9. Appendix
Copy of Survey at http://eap1.blogspot.com/2008/03/having-premarital-sex_03.html

Practice Final: Our view on corporal punishment

The article, “Our view on corporal punishment: To spank or not to spank?” says that forbidding physical punishment might encourage children. Sally Lieber, California Assemblywoman, says that she will innovate a bill that forbids physical punishment. If it is adopted, California will be the leading state to forbid parents from slapping their children. However, there are many contrary opinions, because injury that is caused by abuse violence is illegal already. Also, the government can’t interfere people’s private life. In addition, contrary opinion said physical punishment is an effective way to punish children sometimes. On the other hand, it is true that African-American children are spanked twice as much as students who are of other races.

Forbidding physical punishment might encourage children; however, there are other ways to punish their children.

First, physical and psychological punishment can be help children. When I was a child, my parents spanked me every time, if I did wrong behavior. Their parents spanked most children about fifty years ago. When my parents spanked me, I felt regret and penitence psychologically. Also I felt painful physically, so I swore that I wouldn’t do wrong things again.

Second, removing rewards can help children. For example, if parents give money to their children regularly, their reducing the amount of that money may work to correct their behavior. Children can’t earn money yet; therefore they need money from parents. So, they try to correct their bad behavior. This punishment works psychologically I believe.

Last, give tasks for children that may be help for children. Parents should give them a task, like they have to clean bathroom one week when they did the wrong thing. I classify this as physical punishment. I think spanking children is not only physical punishment. To give children physical fatigue can be a physical punishment.

In conclusion, children need some punishment when they did wrong things, but there is not only spanking them. Parents can give them physical punishment, psychological punishment, and physical and psychological punishment. Recently, physical punishment is getting banned in social life. However, we have to know that not only slapping children is physical punishment. We have many ways to punish our own child besides spanking them.


“Our view on corporal punishment: To spank or not to spank?” (January 25, 2007). USA TODAY. Retrieved 2008, February 28. from http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/01/post_35.html

Drinking Age Survey

1. Introduction

Do you drink alcohol? If so, when did you start drinking? Do you think the government should lower the drinking age? What is your opinion? Today, scientists know an appropriate amount of alcohol is good for our health. However, too much alcohol may cause some serious diseases such as liver disease, neuritis, and mentalillness. Although most people know these facts, people still drink too much alcohol at once. This is a serious problem in the society because drinking has bad effects on not only drinkers but on those around them. When they are drunk, of course they will be bothered with a hangover on the next day; in addition, their minds may lose control; that means some people try to fight with someone, some may cause car accidents, and some may commit a crime. In “The wasted years” the author mentioned “Alcohol abuse hurts academics, according to the Center for College Health and Safety (www2.edc.org/cchs). At least 60 percent of students report trouble steeping or studying because of the distraction caused by on-campus partying.” (2004, para.3) As a result, their health and life are endangered by drinking. Therefore, some people say lowering drinking age may solve these problems.

2. Purpose

Our group, EAP1-A, decided to find out how both drinkers and non-drinkers think about the drinking age in Carbondale. I wanted to examine the relationship between gender and when people start drinking. Also, I wanted to know the relationship between gender and how much alcohol they drink at one time. Moreover, I wanted to examine the relationship between gender and lowering the drinking age.

3. Hypotheses

I had three hypotheses about the drinking age. First, I felt that males would say they started drinking earlier than females. Next, males would say they drink much more alcohol than females. Last, I believed that younger age people are more likely to want to lower the drinking age than adults. I felt that younger people will be more likely to agree to lower the drinking age.

4. Methods and Procedures

Each member of our group asked six people who are different gender, age, and nationality; actually we are concentrating on Americans in Carbondale to get a different opinion. In addition, we decided to ask both drinkers and non-drinkers because the drinking age is related to non-drinkers too. Also, we wanted to know how drinkers thought about drinking. We prepared a survey that had nine questions. Those questions were almost all asking age or yes or no questions, so it was easy for respondents to answer the questions.

5. Data

Connect here http://eap1.blogspot.com/2008/02/practice-survey-results_27.html


6. Result

Actually, most of the people we talked to said that they drink. 8 out of 12 (67%) 18-20 year olds said they drink. 32 out of 36 (88.8%) people who are over 20 said that they drink. 22 of 25 males (88%) drink and 19 of 24 (79%) females drink. 3 of 25 (12%) males and 4 of 24 (17%) females started drinking when they were 13-15 years old. 9 of 25 (36%) males and 11 of 24 (46%) females started drinking when they were 16-18. 11 of 25 (44%) males and 6 of 24 (25%) females started drinking when they were 19-20. 4 of 12 (33%) people who are 18-20 years old and 11 of 36 (31%) people who are over 21 said that they should lower the drinking age, so most people of all affected ages don’t think the drinking age should be lower.

7. Conclusion and Discussion

I believe that men started to drink earlier than women. However, it was not true because our survey showed that about 63% females started drinking before 18 year old while only 48% of males started drinking before 18 year old. I was surprised at that facts because I thought boys were more curious and more interested in drinking than girls. Also, I was surprised that almost same number of 18-20 year old people and over 21-year-old people said that they should lowered the drinking age. I thought of course under 21 year old people would want to lowered the drinking age, because they can drink legally if drinking age becomes lowered.

If I can do this survey next time, I would like to ask a lot of older people because most respondents were 18 to 25 year-old people. Also, if I ask older people, I will be able to get different opinions from younger people’s opinion about drinking. Some of our survey’s result couldn’t be used because some respondents checked none of the alternatives. Therefore, next time I would like to tell them to please check on one choice for each question, before giving the paper to respondents.

8. Reference

The wasted years: college presidents say that changing the culture of drinking on campus has been their gravest challenge, Whether they are up to the task is another question altogether. (2004, June). BENT.com. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LSH/is_6_7/ai_n6054435/print

9. Appendix

Copy of Survey http://eap1.blogspot.com/2008/02/practice-survey-results.html

Drinking Age

The author of “Lowering drinking age is not a solution,” disagrees with Nick Clesen’s column (Mulcahey, 2002). It is talking about lowering the drinking age to 18. The author doesn’t believe lowering drinking age will bring us a better situation, because if they permitted drinking age to 18, some smokers who are under 18 will want to smoke under-age. Also, more drunk drivers will be around. Finally, because the way American culture is built, people abuse alcohol when they are allowed to drink it.

People want the same things as lowering the drinking age, such as smoking, driving, and entering the bar. “Lowering the age to 18 will just open up a new age class to alcohol, those who are under 18” (Mulcahey, 2002, para.6). They will see it as unfair and demand equal treatment. Some people may want no limit to drink alcohol. It is not easy to change a law. Changing one law will affect others and force other laws to change in succession.

Even now many people are driving with alcohol. It is obvious if they change the law to drinking at 18, it will increase the number of drunk drivers in the world. Alcohol causes people to get drunk. When they are drunk, their decisions are hard to make, so they try to drive home still drunk. Then they cause accidents and kill people.

In France, people can drink when they are children, because there is no limit. As a result, drinking is not such a big deal to French people. On the other hand, people are limited by government from drinking alcohol until they are 21 in America. “Oddly enough high school students in much of the rest of the developed world-where lower drinking ages and laxer enforcement reign-do considerably better than U.S. students on standardized tests” (Balco, 2007, para. 9). Americans are stopped from drinking; that is why they drink huge amounts at one time. People under 18 also drink a huge amount, but their bodies are less developed than 21-year-olds. Lowering the drinking age only makes it easier for younger people to abuse alcohol, not solve the problem.

In conclusion, government should not lower the drinking age to 18. They have to recognize that it will mean nothing or bring us more problems. Americans will be upset over unequal change, more drunk drivers, and American culture as abusing alcohol. The author knows what will happen if the drinking age is lowered. It’s too dangerous to permit alcohol under 21.


Balco, R. (2007, April 12). “Back to 18?” Reason Online. Retrieved February 5, 2008, from http://reson.com/news/show/119618.html

Mulcahey, S. (2002, January 30). “Lowering drinking age is not a solution.” Western Courier, Western Illinois University. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http://media.www.westerncourier.com/media/storage/paper650/news/2002/01/30/Opinion/Lowering.Drinking.Age.Is.Not.A.Solution-443723.shtmlhtml

Modern stress

There are many causes of stress in our modern culture. However, the cause of stress is different depending on the person. For adults, the amount of stress is high, but it can also be high for students, for example, in traffic jams, from waiting in lines, and from disconnection of cell phones and computers, all cause stress. Stress makes people’s lives more difficult.

One of the biggest causes of stress is traffic jams. Adults must travel to work every morning and then return at night. Each direction, they are facing stressful situations. Students don’t have to worry about such things as much because they are usually walking, riding on a bicycle, bus, or train. The stress of traffic jams accumulates in every driver every day.

In daily life, people are facing a small amount of stress from waiting in lines. However, we have to wait in line several times a day, so small amounts add up to large amounts of stress. Students have to wait in line to eat at the dining hall after class. Some people have to wait for the bus or train to get where they’re going. People need to rest or take a vacation from stress, but when they travel somewhere, they have to wait in long lines at the airport. Those are situations that make more stress.

Disconnection of computers or cell phones may cause of very stressful situations for some people. For example, foreign student’s computer may be essential because they need to talk to their friends and family and know what is going on in their home country. If it were to break, the student would get in trouble and feel more stressed. Cell phones are vital for arranging meeting places, or checking up on friends or lovers. Communication difficulties can cause horrible stress.

Life is filled with stressful things. Traffic, waiting, and dependence on technology all cause stress to students, children, and adults alike. No one can avoid stress in his or her life. It continually makes our lives difficult. So we have to learn to cope well with stress.

Use public transportation instead of cars

The article ‘Road Rage’ runs rampant in high-stress U.S. society“ shows that road rage is a dangerous problem in America. The article says people who drive cars don’t have enough respect for each other. It also says they have to admit that road rage is their fault. Some people say that strike on the road is caused by stressful situations. Two thirds of traffic deaths result from road rage, and as a result, likes California and Maryland crack down on dangerous and aggressive drivers. There are three advantages to using public transportation instead of automobiles.

More Americans should use other forms of transportation besides their own cars. Road rage can be solved if there are fewer cars on the road. Less traffic means less stress, and therefore less aggression. Japanese need to use public transportation more too, especially in the big cities. Cars pollute the atmosphere, causing global warming, therefore causing of hurt to the earth. In addition to being safe, public transportation is cheaper than using our own car. Public transportation can help the world in many ways.

Most road rage is caused by stress of drivers. For example, a student was almost killed by a stressful driver recently. Americans are busy people, trying to get to places quickly. Therefore, traffic gives people’s stress, even though they can use public transportation. This would mean fewer cars on the road, less traffic, and less stress for everyone.

Every developed country should use public transportation more frequently. It is clear that vehicle emissions are causing global warming and endangering people’s lives. If they can go to work on foot, there is no excuse for their needing to drive cars. Subways and buses provide a social opportunity for travelers that they aren’t getting in a personal car. If they aren’t fighting each other for lane position, they can actually enjoy each other.

Public transportation is cheaper than keeping one’s own car. First, a person must shop for and buy a car. Then they are required to buy insurance for the car, already taking a huge amount of money from the person’s wallet. To drive the car, the person has to fuel the car. Then customizations like chains for icy roads have to be purchased. After words, the person may have used up almost all his or her money, but if the car breaks, they have to repair it before they can get out into the stress of the traffic once again.

It is obvious that public transportation is clear solution to road rage, money saving, and safety concerns. It can save people the stress of traffic on their way to work. It decreases the acceleration of global warming. Finally, public transportation saves people’s time and money. Every able person should know the advantage of their local area’s public transportation systems.

Altman, K. (1997, July 18). ‘Road Rage’ runs rampant in high-stress U.S. society”. CNN. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from http://www.cnn.com/US/9707/18/aggressive.driving/

For women, marital distress means less relief from stress

The article “For women, marital distress means less relief from stress”, explains how married women’s cortisol, a hormone secreted when people feel stress, changes in their daily lives. It says, almost all people have higher level of cortisol when they wake up, so happily married women’s cortisol levels fluctuate during the day because they are helped by their husbands or children when they return home from work. On the other hand, unhappily married women can’t get help from anybody, but instead have more stress from relationship problems or taking care of children, and therefore more cortisol secretion, and no subsequent decline in stress. The research supporting the article is revolutionary in its method of data collection, being the first to observe married couples in their real routines. The article also points out that the research is incomplete and not a determinate means of linking marital satisfaction with cortisol release.

For women, marital distress means less relief from stress. (2008, January 6). Science Daily. Retrieved on January 23, 2008. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101093852.htm

Cash flow

According to Ed Ewing and Rachel Jasper in “Cash flow not debt causes student stress, scientists told”, university students are worried about day-to-day financial problems more than long term financial problems. They base this conclusion upon the research of Adrian Scott, who presented at the University of Manchester during the British psychological society’s annual conference. His surveys revealed the amount of money students possess is insufficient for their daily needs leading to depression, anxiety, and stress. Ewing and Jasper maintain that universities provide financial support and management services. Two students, Helen Crevel and Laura Whelan, were in agreement with the research, stating the daily finance pressures are “the worst thing,” especially having no previous experience supporting themselves before college.

Ewing, E. and Jasper, R. (2005, April 4). Cash flow not debt causes student stress, scientists told. Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved on January 18, 2008, from http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/finance/story/0,12728,1452001,00.html