Where my family home is, is in Devon. We live in Exeter and in an area of Exeter called Exwick. Exwick is a relatively new area of Exeter, having joined the City boundaries a lot later than many of the other boroughs (Pinhoe and Wonford for example have been part of Exeter since soon after the Romans left).
The area isn’t a ‘poor’ area but it’s also not the most affluent area in the City, being almost 3 miles from the City centre doesn’t help but it does reside near a small shopping centre. The sustainability of the area is pretty good, according to the data collected from the website, there are few families with more than 2 cars and there are many people within walking distance from their place of work, however there are 13 people who work over 60km away from their home, meaning their carbon footprint is bigger than average. There is also a good percentage of people using a car share scheme to get to and from work in Exwick (6%). This makes sense to me as having lived there all my life, i know for a fact that a lot of people work in and around Exwick and hence walk to work, also Exwick was one of the trial areas (in Exeter) for green, recycling bins. Further enhancing Exwick’s status as a sustainable area.
The air cleanliness scores a 0.86 out of 1 meaning that it is one of the cleanest areas in Exeter (if not one of the cleanest suburbs in the country?) and has a low level of air pollutants. Exwick has over 81 thousand sq meters of Greenland and from memory there are almost 9 football and rugby pitches in the area as well as many places of land for walks and recreational use.
Overall Exwick is (in my opinion) an area with a high level of sustainability. People walk to and from work on the whole and although there are a few families/people who’s carbon footprint is higher than average, that can be said about almost any area in the country, if not the world.
http://nile.northampton.ac.uk/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_4755_1%26url%3D
Thursday, 25 March 2010
blogg #8
The constituency I live in is called Exwick & St Thomas and the size of the
electorate is 11,305
My local MP is a man called Ben Bradshaw and he represents the labour party.
The name of the local council is the Exwick & St Thomas borough council
The local area is a typically Labour dominated area but over the last few elections it is slowly returning more conservative votes.
2010 is an election year and I believe that it is your right as a citizen to have a vote and make your voice heard. Over the past 150 years people have died and been imprisioned just so people can have a vote, in secret and without pressure from others to vote a certain way. When people do not vote they show a lack of respect. I can understand when people say that they don’t believe that any of the (major) parties don’t seem to hold any of their interests, but thats why people ALSO have to right to soil their ballot paper. I know it’s a waste of a vote to do, but it is showing your opinion in another way.
If people don’t want to vote for a particular party, they should simply not show up. Active abstaining is better than just not voting.
The main things that may influence my vote include how the political parties act up to the election. Labour (as of the time of writing) seem like a moribund party, almost resigned to defeat, but i think this will change in the months and weeks leading up to election day. The tories on the other hand, have possibly the best chance of winning since John Major was put in charge. They are showing a confidence that has been drawn from the demise of the Labour party. However, i do still think that Labour will come out on top.
http://www.devon.gov.uk/text/membersguidedivision-13.pdf
electorate is 11,305
My local MP is a man called Ben Bradshaw and he represents the labour party.
The name of the local council is the Exwick & St Thomas borough council
The local area is a typically Labour dominated area but over the last few elections it is slowly returning more conservative votes.
2010 is an election year and I believe that it is your right as a citizen to have a vote and make your voice heard. Over the past 150 years people have died and been imprisioned just so people can have a vote, in secret and without pressure from others to vote a certain way. When people do not vote they show a lack of respect. I can understand when people say that they don’t believe that any of the (major) parties don’t seem to hold any of their interests, but thats why people ALSO have to right to soil their ballot paper. I know it’s a waste of a vote to do, but it is showing your opinion in another way.
If people don’t want to vote for a particular party, they should simply not show up. Active abstaining is better than just not voting.
The main things that may influence my vote include how the political parties act up to the election. Labour (as of the time of writing) seem like a moribund party, almost resigned to defeat, but i think this will change in the months and weeks leading up to election day. The tories on the other hand, have possibly the best chance of winning since John Major was put in charge. They are showing a confidence that has been drawn from the demise of the Labour party. However, i do still think that Labour will come out on top.
http://www.devon.gov.uk/text/membersguidedivision-13.pdf
Sunday, 7 March 2010
blogg #6/7
So...what are your views? Is there really a transport problem? Do the benefits of motorized transport outweigh the costs? Are there any minor (or perhaps major) changes you personally feel could make our present transport system more sustainable?
POSTED BY ENV1017 AT 12:46 AM
Travel is vital, everyone uses one form of travel at some point and it’s always a hot topic when talking about sustainability and being ‘eco friendly’. People have all sorts of different views on travel and travel is a major talking point. From the cycling Dutch to the Americans who use their 10 miles to the gallon ‘gas guzzlers’, everywhere everyone uses travel.
Basic travel isn’t sustainable. One person, driving to and from work every day will used fuel, the world only had about 20 years worth of natural gas left. Sustainable travel includes car sharing, catching the bus or train or cycling. The only problem with these things are that on a train it’s often crowded and too busy and loud, the same as on a bus. People like their personal space, which they can get in their own car, where they can listen to their own music and don’t have to share their space.
In Holland and the low countries of Europe, a vast majority of the population cycle to work, to school and to wherever they need to go.
Motorized transports do have their advantage. They’re quicker, they’re more personal and they have sentimental value to people (i.e. people get attached to cars and motorbikes) however, they’re not the most sustainable way to travel. Also, they are a major contributor to the fact that the population as a whole are growing more obese.
The changes that could be made on a local scale include, days where everyone has to either take the bus or train, or even a national cycle week. This would encourage and show that people can easily use sustainable travel options.
In conclusion, travel should be made sustainable and for the most part, many countries and communities are doing their bit to aid and develop sustainable travel.
From cycling days/weeks, encouraging bus or train taking or even just simple car sharing sustainable travel is easy to do. Personally, I try to car share as much as possible, I walk a lot and I used o cycle to work. If I can do these easy, small little changes, then the world could and should be able to do so as well, and reap the benefits in the future.
POSTED BY ENV1017 AT 12:46 AM
Travel is vital, everyone uses one form of travel at some point and it’s always a hot topic when talking about sustainability and being ‘eco friendly’. People have all sorts of different views on travel and travel is a major talking point. From the cycling Dutch to the Americans who use their 10 miles to the gallon ‘gas guzzlers’, everywhere everyone uses travel.
Basic travel isn’t sustainable. One person, driving to and from work every day will used fuel, the world only had about 20 years worth of natural gas left. Sustainable travel includes car sharing, catching the bus or train or cycling. The only problem with these things are that on a train it’s often crowded and too busy and loud, the same as on a bus. People like their personal space, which they can get in their own car, where they can listen to their own music and don’t have to share their space.
In Holland and the low countries of Europe, a vast majority of the population cycle to work, to school and to wherever they need to go.
Motorized transports do have their advantage. They’re quicker, they’re more personal and they have sentimental value to people (i.e. people get attached to cars and motorbikes) however, they’re not the most sustainable way to travel. Also, they are a major contributor to the fact that the population as a whole are growing more obese.
The changes that could be made on a local scale include, days where everyone has to either take the bus or train, or even a national cycle week. This would encourage and show that people can easily use sustainable travel options.
In conclusion, travel should be made sustainable and for the most part, many countries and communities are doing their bit to aid and develop sustainable travel.
From cycling days/weeks, encouraging bus or train taking or even just simple car sharing sustainable travel is easy to do. Personally, I try to car share as much as possible, I walk a lot and I used o cycle to work. If I can do these easy, small little changes, then the world could and should be able to do so as well, and reap the benefits in the future.
Friday, 18 December 2009
blogg #5
What do you think? Is Christmas sustainable? How would it all work in a changed world?
Christmas offers people all around the world the chance to let their hair down and celebrate, whether this becomes over indulgence or not is not the issue. Christmas has been around for a long time, and presents haven’t always been given. Only recently has the issue of presents and waste been bought up. With the problem of over packing comes the issue of environmental damage and global warming.
Christmas is a time of giving, giving presents, cards and other things. Food is an issue to, can we use less and yet still eat more whilst wasting less, and the numbers don’t seem to add up. The biggest issue with Christmas is that people seem to take it all for granted, I remember when I was younger and all I wanted was an Exeter City football kit, I’ve never really wanted for much, but some of my friends were getting mountains of presents and just never using them or using them for a few months and then throwing them away. This doesn’t help the image of Christmas being this festival of love and joy. Can giving ever be sustainable? Especially on a mass scale.
In a world where everyone and every company are concerned with the impact of wrapping and wastage (much like it is seeming to be more and more) Christmas wouldn’t have to be much different than it already is. Presents could still be handed out, people could still have the odd glass of wine too many and eat just a little bit too much, but just as long as they weren’t wasting anything. Minimal wrapping paper, less food bought (or just enough for a second helping maybe?) and the wastage wouldn’t be such a worry for people, this also could be said about any of the worlds various religions festivals where food and gifts and natural resources are frittered away like they are nothing and just taken for granted.
The main point about Christmas is that it has been around for a long time, most people I know (and especially in my family, where Christmas is one of the only times where the whole family can and do get together) would just say the season only comes once a year, so leave it alone. Christmas does seem to bring out the best in people, so to answer the question, is Christmas sustainable? Then yes, I believe it is, but only because people seem to change and care about things more than normal at this time of year, because there is something about Christmas that brings everyone back to their childhood, it’s like snow, Christmas is a truly magical time of the year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDoDUC9M0Sg
Christmas offers people all around the world the chance to let their hair down and celebrate, whether this becomes over indulgence or not is not the issue. Christmas has been around for a long time, and presents haven’t always been given. Only recently has the issue of presents and waste been bought up. With the problem of over packing comes the issue of environmental damage and global warming.
Christmas is a time of giving, giving presents, cards and other things. Food is an issue to, can we use less and yet still eat more whilst wasting less, and the numbers don’t seem to add up. The biggest issue with Christmas is that people seem to take it all for granted, I remember when I was younger and all I wanted was an Exeter City football kit, I’ve never really wanted for much, but some of my friends were getting mountains of presents and just never using them or using them for a few months and then throwing them away. This doesn’t help the image of Christmas being this festival of love and joy. Can giving ever be sustainable? Especially on a mass scale.
In a world where everyone and every company are concerned with the impact of wrapping and wastage (much like it is seeming to be more and more) Christmas wouldn’t have to be much different than it already is. Presents could still be handed out, people could still have the odd glass of wine too many and eat just a little bit too much, but just as long as they weren’t wasting anything. Minimal wrapping paper, less food bought (or just enough for a second helping maybe?) and the wastage wouldn’t be such a worry for people, this also could be said about any of the worlds various religions festivals where food and gifts and natural resources are frittered away like they are nothing and just taken for granted.
The main point about Christmas is that it has been around for a long time, most people I know (and especially in my family, where Christmas is one of the only times where the whole family can and do get together) would just say the season only comes once a year, so leave it alone. Christmas does seem to bring out the best in people, so to answer the question, is Christmas sustainable? Then yes, I believe it is, but only because people seem to change and care about things more than normal at this time of year, because there is something about Christmas that brings everyone back to their childhood, it’s like snow, Christmas is a truly magical time of the year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDoDUC9M0Sg
Sunday, 6 December 2009
blogg #4
To what extent do the best selling UK newspapers cover stories related to serious issues? To what extent would you think that it is their role to do so? In your opinion do the tabloid media and 'low budget entertainment' (reality shows, soaps) have too much power and influence in this country?
The tabloid media in this country sell papers because they relate to the lowest common denominator, thus appealing to more people in this country than the broadsheet papers (the guardian, times etc...) and so get their message across and what they want everyone to think to greater effect. The fact that the sun only costs about 25p probably helps this fact, but even though the sun and daily star are viewed so poorly by the upper-middle class and upper-class, this still doesn’t do anything to diminish its popularity. The sun is the biggest selling news paper in Britain and as much as it is a bother to admit it but the stats speak for themselves; the sun had recently started backing the conservative party, the first time they haven’t been labour since John major was in power, the sun has always backed the eventual winners of the following years elections, this is probably why they are so powerful. It is no real surprise that there is only one broadsheet in the top 6 selling newspapers, broadsheets carry a certain stigma about them, people who read papers such as the independent of the times are seen as snobby or posh, this shouldn’t be the case, although people who read the broadsheets tend to be upper-class who look down on people who sit and read the sun. It all comes down to the fact that in this country there is still a big (not quite as big as once was, but still there) class divide.
Looking at the list of television programs, I’m not really surprised at what I see, the top show being the X factor; it is more surprising to see that there is no Eastenders on the table rather than no programs like, newsnight or question time. The reason, this country likes to pretend that we are trying to be sustainable and ‘green’, but what actually happens is that people go about their days trying to look sustainable and then when they get home, rather than watching a program about the world or how to keep your carbon footprint down, they would rather see someone’s life in the eastend of London fall apart, or see who’s being voted off of their favourite reality program. I can’t sit here and pretend that I don’t do this; I do, like everyone else. Although, I do watch newsnight and question time, this is to further my own knowledge of politics and what’s happened in the world, both locally and internationally.
In a country where we are always complaining that we are not informed well enough, we don’t seem to (statistically, I can understand that there are many people who don’t conform to the tables in the bloggprompt) do enough ourselves, granted it is the governments prerogative to keep us informed to a level that we are satisfied, but we have to do a bit of work too, we can’t just sit down and expect to be feed all this information that we want, not always need, to know. The power that the red-tops and the ‘trash TV’ seems to hold is massive, however, as long as there are people reading other papers and watching newsnight, we will still be able to seek out and find information for ourselves.
The tabloid media in this country sell papers because they relate to the lowest common denominator, thus appealing to more people in this country than the broadsheet papers (the guardian, times etc...) and so get their message across and what they want everyone to think to greater effect. The fact that the sun only costs about 25p probably helps this fact, but even though the sun and daily star are viewed so poorly by the upper-middle class and upper-class, this still doesn’t do anything to diminish its popularity. The sun is the biggest selling news paper in Britain and as much as it is a bother to admit it but the stats speak for themselves; the sun had recently started backing the conservative party, the first time they haven’t been labour since John major was in power, the sun has always backed the eventual winners of the following years elections, this is probably why they are so powerful. It is no real surprise that there is only one broadsheet in the top 6 selling newspapers, broadsheets carry a certain stigma about them, people who read papers such as the independent of the times are seen as snobby or posh, this shouldn’t be the case, although people who read the broadsheets tend to be upper-class who look down on people who sit and read the sun. It all comes down to the fact that in this country there is still a big (not quite as big as once was, but still there) class divide.
Looking at the list of television programs, I’m not really surprised at what I see, the top show being the X factor; it is more surprising to see that there is no Eastenders on the table rather than no programs like, newsnight or question time. The reason, this country likes to pretend that we are trying to be sustainable and ‘green’, but what actually happens is that people go about their days trying to look sustainable and then when they get home, rather than watching a program about the world or how to keep your carbon footprint down, they would rather see someone’s life in the eastend of London fall apart, or see who’s being voted off of their favourite reality program. I can’t sit here and pretend that I don’t do this; I do, like everyone else. Although, I do watch newsnight and question time, this is to further my own knowledge of politics and what’s happened in the world, both locally and internationally.
In a country where we are always complaining that we are not informed well enough, we don’t seem to (statistically, I can understand that there are many people who don’t conform to the tables in the bloggprompt) do enough ourselves, granted it is the governments prerogative to keep us informed to a level that we are satisfied, but we have to do a bit of work too, we can’t just sit down and expect to be feed all this information that we want, not always need, to know. The power that the red-tops and the ‘trash TV’ seems to hold is massive, however, as long as there are people reading other papers and watching newsnight, we will still be able to seek out and find information for ourselves.
Friday, 20 November 2009
Blogg #3
To what extent do you think that it is your duty as a citizen to be 'informed'? Are you informed? How do you get to be informed about serious issues? To what extent do you think that you should leave the complicated decisions up to others?
As an inhabitant of the earth I believe that I should be fully informed as to how to live as sustainable as possible and therefore help save the environmental, both local and international.
Empowered citizenship, to me, means that everyone both knows all (if not, then almost all) the facts about a certain issue and also does things to help the situation/issue.
I think that it is my right to know as much as I can about the environment and sustainability and how to live a sustainable lifestyle, but within reason, I trust the government to a certain extent, it that their sensor ship that they put into place is probably well founded. Although some times I think that the government are holding something back that could help the environment, or just not doing all it can in order to fully reduce greenhouse gases or just help the environment, for its own benefit.
Personally I think that information that I have received over my lifetime is sound enough that I have a fairly well rounded and informed Idea and knowledge of sustainability and global warming, in that way, I am fairly well informed.
Everyone should be informed as to sustainability and greenhouse gases, it is our right and duty as citizens of local areas, bigger scale governments and international conventions.
The way in which people get informed is by the media, the media Is the most powerful propaganda tool in the world, people all round the world can read a blogg, a website or watch something on youtube.com and form an opinion on a matter and even learn something useful.
When people become more informed and more involved, they start wanting to make more decisions or at least get more involved in the decision making process, lowering their trust of someone else’s decision making about the big decisions.
Empowered citizenship is a tool of the media; it is being used to, make the public feel like they can make a difference. They can, but in other ways, learn more about a subject that you feel part of, or something you’re passionate about. Write a blogg and use the worldwideweb to exploit and advertise your views and opinions, this will create a multi-national citizenship and global community.
As an inhabitant of the earth I believe that I should be fully informed as to how to live as sustainable as possible and therefore help save the environmental, both local and international.
Empowered citizenship, to me, means that everyone both knows all (if not, then almost all) the facts about a certain issue and also does things to help the situation/issue.
I think that it is my right to know as much as I can about the environment and sustainability and how to live a sustainable lifestyle, but within reason, I trust the government to a certain extent, it that their sensor ship that they put into place is probably well founded. Although some times I think that the government are holding something back that could help the environment, or just not doing all it can in order to fully reduce greenhouse gases or just help the environment, for its own benefit.
Personally I think that information that I have received over my lifetime is sound enough that I have a fairly well rounded and informed Idea and knowledge of sustainability and global warming, in that way, I am fairly well informed.
Everyone should be informed as to sustainability and greenhouse gases, it is our right and duty as citizens of local areas, bigger scale governments and international conventions.
The way in which people get informed is by the media, the media Is the most powerful propaganda tool in the world, people all round the world can read a blogg, a website or watch something on youtube.com and form an opinion on a matter and even learn something useful.
When people become more informed and more involved, they start wanting to make more decisions or at least get more involved in the decision making process, lowering their trust of someone else’s decision making about the big decisions.
Empowered citizenship is a tool of the media; it is being used to, make the public feel like they can make a difference. They can, but in other ways, learn more about a subject that you feel part of, or something you’re passionate about. Write a blogg and use the worldwideweb to exploit and advertise your views and opinions, this will create a multi-national citizenship and global community.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
blogg #2
Al Gore (and the IPCC) won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 (BBC 2007) largely for the production of the film 'An Inconvenient Truth'
The committee cited "their efforts to build up and disseminate knowledge about man-made climate change".
To what extent do you think this was deserved? Having watched this film in class did you feel that your opinion (or perhaps the opinion of others) to the issue of climate change could be positively influenced? What did you think of this film? Was it effective?
The film ‘an inconvenient truth’ was created to highlight people’s knowledge (or lack of) of global warming, Al Gore, as a major promoter of ‘green living’ (http://www.algore.com/) presented the film as a documentary in a hall in front of not only cameras but an audience as well. The film did highlight the fact the people in general really have no idea of the damage that we are doing to the world and the fact the although global warming is a major newspaper seller, we really don’t know the extent to which we are polluting the atmosphere and causing ‘never before seen’ weather patterns, areas that once were covered in permafrost and sea level rises.
However, as good as the film was and as educational as it seemed this doesn’t mean that he was a worthy winner of one of the world’s most prestigious awards whose list if previous winners include the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Ralph Bunche and Martin Luther King to name but a few. The reasons cited for Al Gore being given this award include ‘for his efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change’. I wouldn’t say that Al Gore didn’t illustrate that problem of Global warming, but did he do it on a wide enough scale? Did he address any alternatives to the way in which humans live their lives, non-energy efficient way, people still doubt that global warming is happening or at least being affected by human impact (ILoveCarbonDioxide.com).
The film is almost like just watching a PowerPoint in a lecture hall, the most important age group that Al Gore needed to address and influence is children, and I don’t believe he did this at all. Apart from a small clip from futurama (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_playlists&search_query=futurama+global+warming+clip&uni=1) he didn’t address the one group of people that are really going to make a future difference to the state of the planet and the ones who are going to have to deal with the problems that the previous generations have left them.
Al Gore also didn’t seem to approach the problem of the growing number of Americans who just seem to want to ignore the problem of green house gasses; it just seems to be one of those things that he simply accepts.
Al Gore being given the Nobel peace prize is a good way of enhancing the reputation of the film and of keeping the public eye on global warming but there were probably more worthy candidates for the prize in 2007.
The film did highlight the point that we as a race on this planet are seeing, even if not doing, things that have never been seen before and we need to keep being reminded that the earth was here long before us and it will be here long after we are gone.
The committee cited "their efforts to build up and disseminate knowledge about man-made climate change".
To what extent do you think this was deserved? Having watched this film in class did you feel that your opinion (or perhaps the opinion of others) to the issue of climate change could be positively influenced? What did you think of this film? Was it effective?
The film ‘an inconvenient truth’ was created to highlight people’s knowledge (or lack of) of global warming, Al Gore, as a major promoter of ‘green living’ (http://www.algore.com/) presented the film as a documentary in a hall in front of not only cameras but an audience as well. The film did highlight the fact the people in general really have no idea of the damage that we are doing to the world and the fact the although global warming is a major newspaper seller, we really don’t know the extent to which we are polluting the atmosphere and causing ‘never before seen’ weather patterns, areas that once were covered in permafrost and sea level rises.
However, as good as the film was and as educational as it seemed this doesn’t mean that he was a worthy winner of one of the world’s most prestigious awards whose list if previous winners include the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Ralph Bunche and Martin Luther King to name but a few. The reasons cited for Al Gore being given this award include ‘for his efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change’. I wouldn’t say that Al Gore didn’t illustrate that problem of Global warming, but did he do it on a wide enough scale? Did he address any alternatives to the way in which humans live their lives, non-energy efficient way, people still doubt that global warming is happening or at least being affected by human impact (ILoveCarbonDioxide.com).
The film is almost like just watching a PowerPoint in a lecture hall, the most important age group that Al Gore needed to address and influence is children, and I don’t believe he did this at all. Apart from a small clip from futurama (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_playlists&search_query=futurama+global+warming+clip&uni=1) he didn’t address the one group of people that are really going to make a future difference to the state of the planet and the ones who are going to have to deal with the problems that the previous generations have left them.
Al Gore also didn’t seem to approach the problem of the growing number of Americans who just seem to want to ignore the problem of green house gasses; it just seems to be one of those things that he simply accepts.
Al Gore being given the Nobel peace prize is a good way of enhancing the reputation of the film and of keeping the public eye on global warming but there were probably more worthy candidates for the prize in 2007.
The film did highlight the point that we as a race on this planet are seeing, even if not doing, things that have never been seen before and we need to keep being reminded that the earth was here long before us and it will be here long after we are gone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
