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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)