Before coming to university, I lived in Blakenall Heath, near the town of Bloxwich or Walsall 012C according to Neighbourhood.Statistics.gov. As shown in the link below, it was an area of quite high deprivation, although this may be to a high number of statistics not being available:
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/NeighbourhoodSummary.do?width=1280&a=7&r=1&i=1001&m=0&s=1269548353906&enc=1&profileSearchText=ws3+1hs&searchProfiles=
Memories of Blakenall don’t seem to disagree with what these statistics have to say; the education rates being the least surprising. During primary school, most time would be spent further away in other children’s houses or quiet cul-de-sacs and never after dark. For secondary school I hardly ventured out at all. The consequence of not dressing like the upper echelon of the non-working class was not worth the effort of leaving the house. Anti Social Behaviour Orders were not uncommon in Blakenall and as shown in the below video, the rate at which they were issued even reached the attention of the media. Although the video is not of highest quality, its message is clear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39E4Yu1dhco
However, this behaviour untoward others was more the personalities of the locals rather than the attitude of local government towards sustainable issues. It always seemed the case in Blakenall that the efforts made by local councils would only be ruined by locals a week later. New bus stops would have the glass smashed, new trees planted to try to improve the local wildlife and greenery would be snapped, flowers trampled on. One memory I have is that of a baby, placed in a water-filled recycling box, playing while several adults sat drinking cans of cider in early afternoon. I feel that this image will sum up the reaction towards sustainable development for many years to come.
One definition of sustainability is “Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. New Deal was a government programme set up in the Walsall area in order to provide assistance to those seeking jobs. At first I remember passing it by not caring for its purpose but as the years went by, noticeable changes to the community would occur, all with the sponsorship of New Deal behind them. Returning one day after school, I found the surrounding green area to have been totally transformed by landscapers and gardeners. My father, who works from home, told me that the New Deal trucks had just pulled up and got to work. They’d told him what they were doing and why and then got to work. The change made the area look much better and definitely improved our outlook on Blakenall. Although I wasn’t sure of the employment aspect of New Deal, I was most definitely won over by the community aspect. There was always a police car stationed outside the main New Deal office. This provided a greater sense of security when going into Blakenall Village as it was renamed with the scheme. The community now had a more important meaning than just people who lived in an area. Fairs were more frequent and plans were more widely accepted as they had been designed by the people. This kind of environmental improvement would no doubt make life better for future generations if it could be kept up.
However, after returning back to Blakenall recently not much seems to have improved any further. It’s possible that the effort made to develop the area and the damage done to that effort has reached equilibrium; that or the Walsall Council feel that Blakenall has had its chance. I feel that it is the current generation that has let the neighbourhood down. It could be argued that the parents should have disciplined their (often numerous) children and taught them good behaviour but it is the children who will be complaining in 30 years time and the whole cycle will no doubt repeat itself.
In terms of pollution, Blakenall does not have any factories to speak of. There are cars as there are anywhere else in the world now but from personal experience the bus service is often used. There is not much evidence of renewable energy use except for one house at the bottom of Mouse Hill on the outskirts, using solar panels. As mentioned earlier, there is evidence of recycling, thanks to the many green recycling crates, though not as much as there could be. Overall Blakenall, in my eyes, is not a sustainable environment. It shouldn’t be either. There is no need for an area like this to be kept alive for future generations without some major changes to its structure. After moving to Kingsthorpe in Northampton (one of the more deprived areas as I have been told), I have found that I prefer it to Blakenall. Hopefully this will give inhabitants of Northampton some clearer idea of my previous residence.
20100401
20100316
Local Politics
Constituency: Northampton North
MP: Ms Sally Keeble
Party: Labour
Council: Northampton Borough Council
Dominating Party: Lib Dems
This forthcoming general election I cannot see myself voting for any party so it would seem relatively hypocritical if I were to look down on those who will be in a similar situation. Firstly, if I were to vote for a party it would be Labour. I would do this because Labour seems to hold students views in mind more than any other party; an obvious choice as I am one. Secondly, living in an area where the local MP is a Labour member it would make sense that she would try her hardest to fulfil the policies promised by the Party. Thirdly, my family have always voted for Labour so I might as well carry on the tradition; much like Lloyds TSB being the family bank. However, there are several factors which make voting seem futile. From looking at the 3 main parties it seems that all seem to focus themselves in the centre of the Political Party Spectrum i.e. None are extreme Left or Right so effectively the ultimate goals will be similar for all. To me this suggests that nothing vastly different will become of the country if any of the parties win so really it wouldn’t make a difference who I voted for or even if I voted at all. Also I find myself in a position where I do not have an income, family, own a house, own a business or even drive a car so I feel the majority of policies would not affect me directly. I’m sure there would be plenty of factors that may affect me indirectly but they are not going to scare me into voting just yet. It seems odd to confess that in a society where we can be proud that our country does indeed allow for each person to have a vote that I’m willing to squander that privilege. Tim Harford of the Financial Times says:
“There’s no point in voting at all, for that matter, as a purely logical act. So if you stayed home that day, relax. If you really want to make a difference, buy lottery tickets — your chances of hitting the jackpot are roughly equal to your chances of swinging an election — and devote your winnings to political lobbying.
“The chance of any individual’s vote making any difference to the result is tiny; the benefits of turning an uninformed vote into an informed vote are also tiny. Rationally speaking, why bother?”
A fair view you may agree. I certainly did, as it appeals to the side of me that can’t find myself making the effort to vote. Although at the time of writing this I did register to vote but because of the inability to completely register online, I found myself somewhat disenchanted by the whole experience. Next they’ll be telling me that I can’t vote online either.
The problem lies in that not many people really know what each party stands for. From some research, Labour stands for equality and Liberal Democrats stand for fairness, two not so very different ideas in my opinion. The Conservative Party, with the word conservative in their name, had me believing that they would like everything to stay how it is now but to my surprise on their homepage, the words “Our Country Needs a Change of Course” were emblazoned on it. Each party says the same thing and that makes it hard to decide which to vote for. So for this general election, I will be reserving judgement. I’ll see if I’m disappointed by the outcome and if the answer is yes, I’ll have 4 more years to get my vote sorted. Hopefully by then I can do it online as well.
MP: Ms Sally Keeble
Party: Labour
Council: Northampton Borough Council
Dominating Party: Lib Dems
This forthcoming general election I cannot see myself voting for any party so it would seem relatively hypocritical if I were to look down on those who will be in a similar situation. Firstly, if I were to vote for a party it would be Labour. I would do this because Labour seems to hold students views in mind more than any other party; an obvious choice as I am one. Secondly, living in an area where the local MP is a Labour member it would make sense that she would try her hardest to fulfil the policies promised by the Party. Thirdly, my family have always voted for Labour so I might as well carry on the tradition; much like Lloyds TSB being the family bank. However, there are several factors which make voting seem futile. From looking at the 3 main parties it seems that all seem to focus themselves in the centre of the Political Party Spectrum i.e. None are extreme Left or Right so effectively the ultimate goals will be similar for all. To me this suggests that nothing vastly different will become of the country if any of the parties win so really it wouldn’t make a difference who I voted for or even if I voted at all. Also I find myself in a position where I do not have an income, family, own a house, own a business or even drive a car so I feel the majority of policies would not affect me directly. I’m sure there would be plenty of factors that may affect me indirectly but they are not going to scare me into voting just yet. It seems odd to confess that in a society where we can be proud that our country does indeed allow for each person to have a vote that I’m willing to squander that privilege. Tim Harford of the Financial Times says:
“There’s no point in voting at all, for that matter, as a purely logical act. So if you stayed home that day, relax. If you really want to make a difference, buy lottery tickets — your chances of hitting the jackpot are roughly equal to your chances of swinging an election — and devote your winnings to political lobbying.
“The chance of any individual’s vote making any difference to the result is tiny; the benefits of turning an uninformed vote into an informed vote are also tiny. Rationally speaking, why bother?”
A fair view you may agree. I certainly did, as it appeals to the side of me that can’t find myself making the effort to vote. Although at the time of writing this I did register to vote but because of the inability to completely register online, I found myself somewhat disenchanted by the whole experience. Next they’ll be telling me that I can’t vote online either.
The problem lies in that not many people really know what each party stands for. From some research, Labour stands for equality and Liberal Democrats stand for fairness, two not so very different ideas in my opinion. The Conservative Party, with the word conservative in their name, had me believing that they would like everything to stay how it is now but to my surprise on their homepage, the words “Our Country Needs a Change of Course” were emblazoned on it. Each party says the same thing and that makes it hard to decide which to vote for. So for this general election, I will be reserving judgement. I’ll see if I’m disappointed by the outcome and if the answer is yes, I’ll have 4 more years to get my vote sorted. Hopefully by then I can do it online as well.
Cars
"It's the only way to live, in cars" - Gary Numan
Being one of those unfortunate people who have never owned or even driven a car, the issue of personal transport has never really afflicted me. It is hard for me to comprehend concepts like the volume of petrol a car can get through in a day, or even its basic essentiality for everyday life. However, from the numerous people I know who own cars, it’s quite obvious just how troublesome the transport situation of Britain can be. Topics such as the price of maintenance and insurance often forefront in people’s minds with speed limits and traffic jams following close behind but rarely the case of how bad cars are for the environment. On the other hand there is the public transport system, which receives a fair amount of criticism from those who use it and those who don’t. Being a veteran of buses and trains alike, it is easy enough to state every minor flaw when it comes to presentation and experience but criticising the ability to travel to most parts of the country is much harder to do.
For me and probably many others, life would be very different without the public transport system our government provides. Living a considerable distance from the majority of my friends for most of my life, social activities would have been much more difficult to participate in. It’s hard to imagine what would have happened without buses allowing me to go see my friends. Before coming to University I only had one friend who owned a car. Once that car came into his possession, changes in his personality were evident. Suddenly everything started to cost much more money than he deemed worth, money that could be spent on a friendly drink with friends would now be used to buy petrol or to fund customising his car in some way or another and every walk was now just too far. Car drivers are incredibly lazy I’ve discovered over the years. The mobility that a car provides has been both a benefit and a loss. Transport, along with readymade meals and the internet has made everything so easy that people are so very infrequently motivated to do anything that may require effort. It’s said that a lack of fitness can be derived from the over dependence on cars and it’s not hard to imagine.
Negativities aside, the car has revolutionised society. Much like buses and trains but to a higher degree, it allows anyone to travel wherever they like whenever they like. Parts of the country that were never accessible before have now became accessible for the first time and aside from luxury, the car now proves essential to everyday working life. That is partly where the transport problem lies. The over-dependency on cars means that people are very reluctant to use different methods of transport and that will ultimately result in catastrophe. However, I feel I belong to the school of thought that deems itself technologist. That is I believe that technology will eventually find a way to solve any problem that may be apparent. So really it is difficult for me to say that I think there will still be a problem in the future. I have no doubt that some form of renewable energy will be discovered or harnessed that will solve any of Earths energy problems. For instance, nuclear fusion will no doubt become the world’s number one source of energy once it has been harnessed properly as its waste product is merely water. However, even if that is discovered tomorrow, it will still take years to implement into the transport system. The technology will no doubt be far too bulky to situate inside an automobile let alone be safe enough. Therefore even though technology may be the long term answer, there is still a lot that needs to be done in the short term.
A lot of drivers don’t consider the indirect costs to car ownership but only concentrate on direct out-of-pocket costs such as fuel and insurance. For example, with an increasing number of cars, more roads will need to be made in order to cope. In America 60% of the gas tax contributes towards the construction of these roads. So if more roads are needed, tax must be increased. Maybe the tax will not be increased on petrol but it will have to come from somewhere which will still indirectly affect car owners. It’s not all bad though. The production of cars, as stated by this article below, created the middle class:
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4899992_how-did-automobile-change-america.html
Steady work was now available to the masses. The car also created the world of suburbs. Now workers could easily commute to work each day, explore new areas of the country and visit the seaside.
In my opinion, the benefits of cars easily outweigh the cost to the environment. I am one of those that firmly believe that technology will solve any problem that is thrown at the world. It might be subtle such as a new way to eradicate technology or it could be huge like populating Mars. Either way I’m not one to live in fear and neither should anyone else. There are those who are paid to worry about the environment and then there are those who are paid to fix it. For everyone else, life carries on and not many are going to give up their mobility if they don’t have to. So no, there is not a transport problem, there is only a delay before we crack it.
Being one of those unfortunate people who have never owned or even driven a car, the issue of personal transport has never really afflicted me. It is hard for me to comprehend concepts like the volume of petrol a car can get through in a day, or even its basic essentiality for everyday life. However, from the numerous people I know who own cars, it’s quite obvious just how troublesome the transport situation of Britain can be. Topics such as the price of maintenance and insurance often forefront in people’s minds with speed limits and traffic jams following close behind but rarely the case of how bad cars are for the environment. On the other hand there is the public transport system, which receives a fair amount of criticism from those who use it and those who don’t. Being a veteran of buses and trains alike, it is easy enough to state every minor flaw when it comes to presentation and experience but criticising the ability to travel to most parts of the country is much harder to do.
For me and probably many others, life would be very different without the public transport system our government provides. Living a considerable distance from the majority of my friends for most of my life, social activities would have been much more difficult to participate in. It’s hard to imagine what would have happened without buses allowing me to go see my friends. Before coming to University I only had one friend who owned a car. Once that car came into his possession, changes in his personality were evident. Suddenly everything started to cost much more money than he deemed worth, money that could be spent on a friendly drink with friends would now be used to buy petrol or to fund customising his car in some way or another and every walk was now just too far. Car drivers are incredibly lazy I’ve discovered over the years. The mobility that a car provides has been both a benefit and a loss. Transport, along with readymade meals and the internet has made everything so easy that people are so very infrequently motivated to do anything that may require effort. It’s said that a lack of fitness can be derived from the over dependence on cars and it’s not hard to imagine.
Negativities aside, the car has revolutionised society. Much like buses and trains but to a higher degree, it allows anyone to travel wherever they like whenever they like. Parts of the country that were never accessible before have now became accessible for the first time and aside from luxury, the car now proves essential to everyday working life. That is partly where the transport problem lies. The over-dependency on cars means that people are very reluctant to use different methods of transport and that will ultimately result in catastrophe. However, I feel I belong to the school of thought that deems itself technologist. That is I believe that technology will eventually find a way to solve any problem that may be apparent. So really it is difficult for me to say that I think there will still be a problem in the future. I have no doubt that some form of renewable energy will be discovered or harnessed that will solve any of Earths energy problems. For instance, nuclear fusion will no doubt become the world’s number one source of energy once it has been harnessed properly as its waste product is merely water. However, even if that is discovered tomorrow, it will still take years to implement into the transport system. The technology will no doubt be far too bulky to situate inside an automobile let alone be safe enough. Therefore even though technology may be the long term answer, there is still a lot that needs to be done in the short term.
A lot of drivers don’t consider the indirect costs to car ownership but only concentrate on direct out-of-pocket costs such as fuel and insurance. For example, with an increasing number of cars, more roads will need to be made in order to cope. In America 60% of the gas tax contributes towards the construction of these roads. So if more roads are needed, tax must be increased. Maybe the tax will not be increased on petrol but it will have to come from somewhere which will still indirectly affect car owners. It’s not all bad though. The production of cars, as stated by this article below, created the middle class:
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4899992_how-did-automobile-change-america.html
Steady work was now available to the masses. The car also created the world of suburbs. Now workers could easily commute to work each day, explore new areas of the country and visit the seaside.
In my opinion, the benefits of cars easily outweigh the cost to the environment. I am one of those that firmly believe that technology will solve any problem that is thrown at the world. It might be subtle such as a new way to eradicate technology or it could be huge like populating Mars. Either way I’m not one to live in fear and neither should anyone else. There are those who are paid to worry about the environment and then there are those who are paid to fix it. For everyone else, life carries on and not many are going to give up their mobility if they don’t have to. So no, there is not a transport problem, there is only a delay before we crack it.
20100107
Getting a Lump of Coal for Christmas
Christmas Day is an odd time for the vast majority of the world. Nearly everything grinds to a halt and Western Civilisation for the first time in a year wakes up at 5am. Relatively few cars are on the roads and even fewer shops are open. The trees have no leaves on them and there are no animals to be seen. The world is dead, which is somewhat ironic for a day celebrating the birth of Jesus.
So is Christmas Day sustainable? I believe it to be. However, I have my doubts concerning the months leading up to it. Christmas is celebrated by approximately 2.1billion Christians globally and countless more non-Christians. From personal experience, there is not a great deal of activity on Christmas day apart from the opening of presents and the cooking of Christmas dinner. A large percentage of the world ceases to work on Christmas day and so a large percentage of transport ceases to pollute. Of course there are still millions of people in the UK alone who work on Christmas day, be it because the day has no significance to them or because work has forced them to do so. So on Christmas day, pollution is reduced to amounts that should be ideal if replicated throughout the year. However, there are some drawbacks to the reduced transportation on Christmas day, often due to disruption. The UK for example, has no national rail service on Christmas Day. Yet a lot of people, namely those in the emergency services and those who do not celebrate Christmas, still require transport systems as 25% of British households do not own a car. The below article tells of how the emergency services often have to treat Christmas as any other day and provides an idea of how not everyone is lucky enough to have the day off:
http://www.uniondemocrat.com/2009122498720/News/Local-News/Many-still-work-on-Christmas-Day
The NHS claims that more than 80,000 people require hospital treatment at Christmas. You are 50% more likely to perish in a house fire at Christmas than any other time and the kitchen suddenly becomes the most dangerous place on Earth. So not only are these doctors and nurses tending to your injury sustained by using scissors as a screwdriver or eating mistletoe when they could be at home, you’re costing the government money for use of a free health service
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Healthychristmas/Pages/Christmasinjuries.aspx
The Christmas period encompasses much more than just the day though. The lead up to Christmas is one that produces much waste. In America, Christmas creates approximately $435billion of economic activity. In 2004 the UK spent £15.1billion ($24.4billion) on Christmas in total and to think of the number of presents that get thrown away with relatively little use is quite astonishing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4462502.stm)
The below link outlines some of the Christmas spending that took place in Australia as of 2004:
http://environment.about.com/od/greenchristmas/a/christmascost.htm
As is common knowledge, the production of goods often results in the deterioration of the environment as resources are utilised (often inefficiently) but it is quite thought provoking to consider that just £16 pounds of chocolate contributes 16 kilograms of Greenhouse Gases to the environment. The UK’s GDP is roughly twice as much as Australia’s and our population approximately 3 times, so it would seem reasonable to assume that we spend much more than them. Continuing the idea of excessive waste at Christmas, Envirowise (an English based advisory company for waste management) started a scheme to reduce the number of trees cut down for use in Christmas cards:
http://www.envirowise.gov.uk/uk/-Spare-a-tree-this-christmas.html
In my opinion, cards are a waste of resources the moment they are created. Not intending to come off as one who hates cards but my opinion is as follows. Cards, especially in this decade, hold little value and convey even less. Apart from discovering who sent a certain present and some minor decoration for a limited timeframe, Christmas cards have no real purpose. Therefore, I personally believe that the electronic card scheme that Envirowise have utilised is the way forward in reducing card waste as last year 23,500 e-cards were sent, so that’s 23,500 fewer actual cards.
It is not just cards that are wasted though. Food and heating both find themselves in excess each year. £275million or 230,000 tonnes of food is thrown away over the festive season and is stored in landfill where it creates methane gas (a greenhouse gas). So overall, food waste is not very good for either the economy or the environment. Heat loss leads to increased bills for home owners and inefficient use of natural resources used for heating so similarly, not very good.
The Christmas tree is one of the most iconic images of any religious festival. There are very few in the Western World that could not link an image of the Christmas tree to Christmas. The Christmas tree is, at least to me, the image of Christmas but is it sustainable? Today, artificial and real fir trees are bought to celebrate Christmas. Both have their advantages and disadvantage towards your wallet and the environment. Would you rather pay money for one artificial tree that lasts multiple years or pay more money each year for a real one? The below article explains the different effects of each type:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/science_motherhood/great_debate_real_vs_artificial_christmas_trees
It seems to me that Christmas is just one of those times where a large proportion of the world is unconcerned with the waste produced or the new levels of excess reached each year so it would seem relatively futile to throw up a fuss about it. However there are those who still care about the environment and are willing to sacrifice just a little each year so the world can rotate just a bit longer. However I cannot claim I am one of those people as I much prefer to go all out and have a bigger and better Christmas each year, just like most people, which is very selfish considering we are in the season of giving not taking.
So is Christmas Day sustainable? I believe it to be. However, I have my doubts concerning the months leading up to it. Christmas is celebrated by approximately 2.1billion Christians globally and countless more non-Christians. From personal experience, there is not a great deal of activity on Christmas day apart from the opening of presents and the cooking of Christmas dinner. A large percentage of the world ceases to work on Christmas day and so a large percentage of transport ceases to pollute. Of course there are still millions of people in the UK alone who work on Christmas day, be it because the day has no significance to them or because work has forced them to do so. So on Christmas day, pollution is reduced to amounts that should be ideal if replicated throughout the year. However, there are some drawbacks to the reduced transportation on Christmas day, often due to disruption. The UK for example, has no national rail service on Christmas Day. Yet a lot of people, namely those in the emergency services and those who do not celebrate Christmas, still require transport systems as 25% of British households do not own a car. The below article tells of how the emergency services often have to treat Christmas as any other day and provides an idea of how not everyone is lucky enough to have the day off:
http://www.uniondemocrat.com/2009122498720/News/Local-News/Many-still-work-on-Christmas-Day
The NHS claims that more than 80,000 people require hospital treatment at Christmas. You are 50% more likely to perish in a house fire at Christmas than any other time and the kitchen suddenly becomes the most dangerous place on Earth. So not only are these doctors and nurses tending to your injury sustained by using scissors as a screwdriver or eating mistletoe when they could be at home, you’re costing the government money for use of a free health service
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Healthychristmas/Pages/Christmasinjuries.aspx
The Christmas period encompasses much more than just the day though. The lead up to Christmas is one that produces much waste. In America, Christmas creates approximately $435billion of economic activity. In 2004 the UK spent £15.1billion ($24.4billion) on Christmas in total and to think of the number of presents that get thrown away with relatively little use is quite astonishing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4462502.stm)
The below link outlines some of the Christmas spending that took place in Australia as of 2004:
http://environment.about.com/od/greenchristmas/a/christmascost.htm
As is common knowledge, the production of goods often results in the deterioration of the environment as resources are utilised (often inefficiently) but it is quite thought provoking to consider that just £16 pounds of chocolate contributes 16 kilograms of Greenhouse Gases to the environment. The UK’s GDP is roughly twice as much as Australia’s and our population approximately 3 times, so it would seem reasonable to assume that we spend much more than them. Continuing the idea of excessive waste at Christmas, Envirowise (an English based advisory company for waste management) started a scheme to reduce the number of trees cut down for use in Christmas cards:
http://www.envirowise.gov.uk/uk/-Spare-a-tree-this-christmas.html
In my opinion, cards are a waste of resources the moment they are created. Not intending to come off as one who hates cards but my opinion is as follows. Cards, especially in this decade, hold little value and convey even less. Apart from discovering who sent a certain present and some minor decoration for a limited timeframe, Christmas cards have no real purpose. Therefore, I personally believe that the electronic card scheme that Envirowise have utilised is the way forward in reducing card waste as last year 23,500 e-cards were sent, so that’s 23,500 fewer actual cards.
It is not just cards that are wasted though. Food and heating both find themselves in excess each year. £275million or 230,000 tonnes of food is thrown away over the festive season and is stored in landfill where it creates methane gas (a greenhouse gas). So overall, food waste is not very good for either the economy or the environment. Heat loss leads to increased bills for home owners and inefficient use of natural resources used for heating so similarly, not very good.
The Christmas tree is one of the most iconic images of any religious festival. There are very few in the Western World that could not link an image of the Christmas tree to Christmas. The Christmas tree is, at least to me, the image of Christmas but is it sustainable? Today, artificial and real fir trees are bought to celebrate Christmas. Both have their advantages and disadvantage towards your wallet and the environment. Would you rather pay money for one artificial tree that lasts multiple years or pay more money each year for a real one? The below article explains the different effects of each type:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/science_motherhood/great_debate_real_vs_artificial_christmas_trees
It seems to me that Christmas is just one of those times where a large proportion of the world is unconcerned with the waste produced or the new levels of excess reached each year so it would seem relatively futile to throw up a fuss about it. However there are those who still care about the environment and are willing to sacrifice just a little each year so the world can rotate just a bit longer. However I cannot claim I am one of those people as I much prefer to go all out and have a bigger and better Christmas each year, just like most people, which is very selfish considering we are in the season of giving not taking.
20091209
Un-informative Information
In my first lesson of Economics, I learnt that people are selfish. People will do whatever they can to ensure that they’re life is as comfortable as it can possibly be. If an issue does not affect them directly, it’s not worth concerning themselves about it. This is evidently the problem at hand here. Everyday people don’t want to hear about the problems of global warming or pollution; they would rather immerse themselves in a false reality. Such as the backstreets of Coronation Street where it’s a surprise there are any cast members left courtesy of the plethora of murders that go on or the wonders of X Factor where it’s inexplicable how two terrible entertainers can paradoxically capture the hearts of half of Britain. People love a good mystery. Those in charge of providing entertainment to the masses certainly know what they’re doing. If they want people to watch their shows, they’re going to have to appeal to their tastes, throw all acknowledgement of what’s happening in the world out of the window and create a mindless session of moving pictures for people to unwind to. It’s not as if I don’t partake in such an activity though. After a long day of studying, I find it much more preferable to watch the activities of that famous family of yellow Americans than to watch and hear the terrible atrocities that people of the world create. My view is that the majority of people who wish to know more about serious world issues, have the ability to do so, therefore the problem does not lie there. The problem is that people just do not want to know. What they don’t know can’t hurt them. Except it can, which will no doubt cause more fear and regression into the land of soap operas. Inserting current day issues into dramas has become more and more popular but often subtle enough to avoid viewers turning over. Personally, I have seen many programs where a new cast character has been introduced as coming from India or China or another foreign country and not once have I ever associated that with the issue of migration. Yet as I write this I feel fairly certain that the episode I watched would have had some impact on my sub-conscious. That maybe the opinions of the writers of that episode had been passed on to me via a program I enjoy to watch. If that is the case then it worries me how influential a simple television program can be yet I am pleased that the programs I watch are written by open minded people.
Television broadcasting is the most influential media form in the world. Four hours of television a day means that by the age of 60, the average person has spent 10 years watching. A huge amount of television viewing is done by children with approximately 30 hours of schooling a week compared to 38 hours of watching. It is advised that children under the age of 2 do not watch television. It is at this time that humans learn about social interaction and at that stage, the distinction between reality and fantasy is impossible for a child. After a hard day’s work, the distinction can become quite difficult for adults as well. We will allow anything to play in the background as long as it does not require thinking. Television is not all bad though, for children it can be an excellent tool for learning. The same can be said for adults who are actively watching. Documentaries can be both entertaining and highly informative on a subject that the viewer has chosen to watch. I myself am looking forward to watching the Copenhagen Conference on different news channels but will most definitely only watch it when I am ready to, in order to absorb as much as possible. So referring back to my original point, I believe that the means to watch informative and none biased programs is available to everyone; it is just whether we can be bothered to seek them out.
Now it is quite easy to simply talk about the influence of television but to see it in action is a different story. Below is a link of a hidden camera’s recording of children watching television.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny3JpoLJixM
Although it is difficult to distinguish what one boy says, the phrase “Tag Team Champions” can be heard quite clearly and an act of violence is committed. It is my impression that these children have been watching or at some point watched some form of wrestling program and the effects are quite apparent. Even more interesting is the way the adult in this clip is using the television as some sort of nanny for the children and then even he becomes hypnotised by the adverts. This level of influence is disturbing and even more so if it could be used to plant notions and opinions in the general public. However I don’t think the different stages of quality control could allow sub-conscious racism to be projected from every set in the country.
Television broadcasting is the most influential media form in the world. Four hours of television a day means that by the age of 60, the average person has spent 10 years watching. A huge amount of television viewing is done by children with approximately 30 hours of schooling a week compared to 38 hours of watching. It is advised that children under the age of 2 do not watch television. It is at this time that humans learn about social interaction and at that stage, the distinction between reality and fantasy is impossible for a child. After a hard day’s work, the distinction can become quite difficult for adults as well. We will allow anything to play in the background as long as it does not require thinking. Television is not all bad though, for children it can be an excellent tool for learning. The same can be said for adults who are actively watching. Documentaries can be both entertaining and highly informative on a subject that the viewer has chosen to watch. I myself am looking forward to watching the Copenhagen Conference on different news channels but will most definitely only watch it when I am ready to, in order to absorb as much as possible. So referring back to my original point, I believe that the means to watch informative and none biased programs is available to everyone; it is just whether we can be bothered to seek them out.
Now it is quite easy to simply talk about the influence of television but to see it in action is a different story. Below is a link of a hidden camera’s recording of children watching television.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny3JpoLJixM
Although it is difficult to distinguish what one boy says, the phrase “Tag Team Champions” can be heard quite clearly and an act of violence is committed. It is my impression that these children have been watching or at some point watched some form of wrestling program and the effects are quite apparent. Even more interesting is the way the adult in this clip is using the television as some sort of nanny for the children and then even he becomes hypnotised by the adverts. This level of influence is disturbing and even more so if it could be used to plant notions and opinions in the general public. However I don’t think the different stages of quality control could allow sub-conscious racism to be projected from every set in the country.
I have more issue with newspapers though. Being a Guardian reader, I enjoy the informative content and find any obvious political views of the writers to be either just or called for. Not often have I seen cheap insults at members of the opposite party, less than can be said for The Sun. One of my housemates regularly buys and reads The Sun. On several occasions a story may have caught my eye but I would always find the issue was never properly concluded and often would just have outrageous remarks throughout. The Sun is a tabloid newspaper and as such has the role of providing news on the less important problems in the world. Focusing on celebrities and scandal are some of its more sophisticated aims. People want to know what is going on in a celebrity’s life and The Sun provides that. Not much can be faulted in their intentions until stories are completely fabricated which The Sun has done a few times during its course. Now not only are irrelevant stories being read by nearly 8million a day but they’re also complete rubbish. One of their more researched headlines stated “STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL."
However newspapers aim to please their readers and to do that they provide what the readers want. If only a small percentage of readers want to know about serious environmental issues then that is more a fault of our own then any media service. Once again the human race has disappointed itself.
However newspapers aim to please their readers and to do that they provide what the readers want. If only a small percentage of readers want to know about serious environmental issues then that is more a fault of our own then any media service. Once again the human race has disappointed itself.
20091117
Am I Being Informed? (And Many More Rhetorical Questions)
I personally believe that how well someone is informed is directly related to how much power that one person has. For example, a military general would need to be highly informed on every possible scenario before they were to make a decision. The prime minister, although he does not have entire power over the country, must still remain highly informed of potential problems in society. A child of 5 years old who does not the ability to vote has no real need to be informed of the problems of climate change or the problems surrounding the introduction of new policies.
Currently, I am not registered to vote. Does that mean I should not be informed? In a way yes if you were to follow my aforementioned theory. I have relatively little power to sway any political argument that is currently in process. So why should I be informed? If I were to be told about the situation and realise I was highly against it but have no vote to my name, then surely I would have been better off not knowing. Ignorance is bliss as they say. Yes of course, I might suffer from the effects of the decision being made but if I couldn’t do anything about it then, how can I do anything about it now? The obvious answer would be to get myself registered and make my vote count but then I encounter another problem. Does one vote actually count? If the majority vote was in favour but I was against, would my single vote really make any impact on the outcome? I don’t believe it would. However if the majority vote was in my favour, would there be any need for my single vote? I don’t believe there would. Which leads us back to the start; do I really need to be informed on anything?
The next step would be to ask whether anyone needs to be informed. It is certain that they do. One person with a vote may not have that much power but an entire nation with an army of votes is a force to be reckoned with. The opinion of the voting public can be quite unexpected as shown in the 1936 Presidential Election when Roosevelt beat Landon 523 votes to 8.
Would one vote have made a difference in that scenario? If 9 tenths of those people who voted were removed because they had not been informed on the matter, would the results have been any different?
After 18 years of not voting, I feel as if I could go another 18 years of doing the same.
I feel that I am fairly well informed on most issues in society. I feel the government do a good job in keeping us up to date on important issues such as the effects of alcohol, practicing safe sex, what is happening with the economy. The media then amplifies these issues (usually biased) and the public then have a more detailed idea of what is happening in the world. At least that is how I get my information. We are constantly informed that different newspapers and different websites will be biased towards the opinions of the authors and editors of that article. A research paper undertaken by Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro suggests that newspapers are indeed politically biased but more so to attract new and keep their old audiences interested in the publication. The paper can be found here:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12707.pdf
For those not willing to part with $5, a brief summary is available here:
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/07/leaning-newspapers/
So what does this say about newspapers? For me, it says that newspaper companies, like any other company, are in it for the money but at least they are still informing their readers. This raises yet another question. Is money behind everything? The government sends out warnings, informing people of the hazards of smoking. Is the concern actually that people are damaging their internal organs? Or does the concern lie with how much money the NHS will have to spend treating illnesses caused by smoking? Would it be better to know the truth? For me, ignorance is bliss. Personally, I am more than happy to let those with the power to continue to run the country while I concentrate on what is most important to me at the moment.
Perhaps when I have a family to support and an honest job, I may start to devote more concern to how the economy is, to whether war might endanger us, my children’s education. Until then I cannot see myself registering to vote.
Currently, I am not registered to vote. Does that mean I should not be informed? In a way yes if you were to follow my aforementioned theory. I have relatively little power to sway any political argument that is currently in process. So why should I be informed? If I were to be told about the situation and realise I was highly against it but have no vote to my name, then surely I would have been better off not knowing. Ignorance is bliss as they say. Yes of course, I might suffer from the effects of the decision being made but if I couldn’t do anything about it then, how can I do anything about it now? The obvious answer would be to get myself registered and make my vote count but then I encounter another problem. Does one vote actually count? If the majority vote was in favour but I was against, would my single vote really make any impact on the outcome? I don’t believe it would. However if the majority vote was in my favour, would there be any need for my single vote? I don’t believe there would. Which leads us back to the start; do I really need to be informed on anything?
The next step would be to ask whether anyone needs to be informed. It is certain that they do. One person with a vote may not have that much power but an entire nation with an army of votes is a force to be reckoned with. The opinion of the voting public can be quite unexpected as shown in the 1936 Presidential Election when Roosevelt beat Landon 523 votes to 8.
Would one vote have made a difference in that scenario? If 9 tenths of those people who voted were removed because they had not been informed on the matter, would the results have been any different?
After 18 years of not voting, I feel as if I could go another 18 years of doing the same.
I feel that I am fairly well informed on most issues in society. I feel the government do a good job in keeping us up to date on important issues such as the effects of alcohol, practicing safe sex, what is happening with the economy. The media then amplifies these issues (usually biased) and the public then have a more detailed idea of what is happening in the world. At least that is how I get my information. We are constantly informed that different newspapers and different websites will be biased towards the opinions of the authors and editors of that article. A research paper undertaken by Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro suggests that newspapers are indeed politically biased but more so to attract new and keep their old audiences interested in the publication. The paper can be found here:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12707.pdf
For those not willing to part with $5, a brief summary is available here:
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/07/leaning-newspapers/
So what does this say about newspapers? For me, it says that newspaper companies, like any other company, are in it for the money but at least they are still informing their readers. This raises yet another question. Is money behind everything? The government sends out warnings, informing people of the hazards of smoking. Is the concern actually that people are damaging their internal organs? Or does the concern lie with how much money the NHS will have to spend treating illnesses caused by smoking? Would it be better to know the truth? For me, ignorance is bliss. Personally, I am more than happy to let those with the power to continue to run the country while I concentrate on what is most important to me at the moment.
Perhaps when I have a family to support and an honest job, I may start to devote more concern to how the economy is, to whether war might endanger us, my children’s education. Until then I cannot see myself registering to vote.
20091029
Kill Al Vol. 1.
"President Bush has a plan. He says that if we need to, we can lower the temperature dramatically just by switching from Fahrenheit to Celsius" --Jimmy Kimmel, on fighting global warming
Before watching “An Inconvenient Truth” I was unsure of the topic of Global Warming. I was quite confident in my knowledge of the theory, just unsure of whether such an event would ever take place or whether it would be as catastrophic as claimed. Several days before I had came across an environmentalist called Bjorn Lomborg. He claimed that while Global warming would happen, prevention should not be our highest priority. I found this interesting because here was a highly respected environmentalist stating that global warming should not be our number one concern. This opened up a new way of thinking to me. Yes this event will take place but we can achieve more by tackling subjects that are affecting the world now. The line that really made me contemplate this school of thought can be found in the following link at 12.44:
“How odd, that they cared so much about helping me a little bit through climate change and cared so fairly little about helping my grandfather, and my great grandfather whom they could have helped so much more and who needed the help so much more”
I recall several minutes before watching an Inconvenient Truth, discussing this very quote with a colleague. He too had the exact same sentiments and felt a much greater interest in the issue of Global Warming than he had before. Armed with this new concept, I completed a survey based around the controversial topic. My recently acquired opinion’s influence can be seen on many of the answers. In terms of regarding global warming as the biggest threat to society, I had to disagree. A tone of approval came from my colleague as we quietly discussed further. Feeling confident, I continued to finish the rest of the survey. That is until I encountered the following question:
“The science of climate change is uncertain”
After some consideration on the subject I promptly ticked the “agree” box. Later I found that it is in fact a fairly accurate science. The results of such a catastrophe are very precise and the effects well known. This new information had tripped me up. A subject that I had never taken much interest in had just shown me that I didn’t know too much about it either. I felt I had been moved back to square one. After watching an extract from an Inconvenient Truth, I can say I am most definitely back to square one.
The question at the forefront of my dilemma is whether Al Gore’s documentary really does exaggerate the problem in order to scare us into going greener as the sceptics say or whether the sceptics are just playing down the problem because they really are on the payroll of the major oil companies. Two answers that toy with the concept of deception more than is comfortable.
I have read in several different articles that Mr. Gore included errors in his presentation and also bent statistics to his purpose. The following article tells of how 9 clear errors are found in An Inconvenient Truth:
Some of those errors are not just slightly wrong; they exaggerate to a point of causing unnecessary worry. For example, Mr. Gore claims that the melting of Greenland ice will occur “in the near future”. While on a geographical scale a few millennia can be seen as a relatively short period as the Earth itself is c4.5billion years old but to the everyday person, “near future” suggests the melting may take place in 50 years; a huge difference. This film gave me the impression it was aimed at a casual audience i.e. not one that has studied or knows a huge amount on the topic of climate change. As a result, this alarmist idea is being projected onto an audience that does not have any idea of the issue, so find it easier to accept Gore’s ideas as fact. I have no doubt that Al Gore is trying his hardest to pave way for a better Earth, it is just the method in which he is doing so can be seen as dubious to say the least.
Another theory that intrigued me was that although we are told to switch off our lights and not to leave our television sets on standby, the result would be insignificant in the overall picture of reducing climate change. This theory was first made known to me before the viewing of “An Inconvenient Truth” and was so interesting to me that I went away and researched it after. Indeed it does seem that our individual actions will have relatively little effect. The following article explains that we do in fact need to change all our transport to 100% electric and to completely restructure the economy. Two things that are highly unlikely to happen soon enough:
This article also reveals that it is not just Al Gore who can be accused of fear mongering. Our own Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling stated during the Budget that climate change would have “catastrophic economic and social consequences". Perhaps some of the statistics that I found most interesting in that article were the ones that actually put a positive light on Global Warming. Perhaps the reason they are interesting to me is that it is not often that you hear a positive comment about the issue. For example, “the UK would suffer an increase in heat-related deaths by 2,000 a year, and a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 deaths a year”
So to conclude, I respect that Al Gore does indeed wish to save the environment and also to unite mankind in doing so. Whether he deserves to win the Nobel Peace Prize, I am unsure. He has set out to increase the awareness of the issue to the people and he has in fact done that. Whether the end justifies the means is down to the committee that made the final decision but he has in my very honest opinion, done more for us than any of the sceptics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)