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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9z

“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:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm

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:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557374/The-REAL-inconvenient-truth-Zealotry-global-warming-damage-Earth-far-climate-change.html

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.

Blogprompt Bonanza

What actions could you (in theory) undertake that would improve the 'sustainability' of your lifestyle? What might be preventing you from doing these?

Sustainability is all about managing to keep something in a continuous state; literally the ability to sustain. It is development that can be held in the same state for as long as possible. Usually sustainable development would mean that a positive result is being sustained i.e. everyone’s needs are being fulfilled while simultaneously limiting any negative outcomes. So for example, everyone has access to clean water but the environment is not being damaged by the pollution caused in making it possible. This is the kind of sustainable development sought after. To have sustainable development that resulted in negativities wouldn’t be a challenge at all. Producing as much as possible while creating huge quantities of pollution would be a simple task and as a bonus it would make summer a bit hotter (sic).

However, applying this theory to an individual tends to be a bit of a different story entirely. If I were to try and apply the above idea to my wants, some form of paradox is going to come about. I want to spend money on everything I want but I don’t want my wealth to decrease. I want to drink and eat whatever I please but I don’t want my health to deteriorate. I want to achieve but I don’t want to spend time and effort doing so.  In a way this idea could be applied to everyone as everyone wants positive outcomes but with no negative ones.  However, it is possible to fulfil my wants and needs but reduce the global negative effects. For example, if I need to travel somewhere, rather than driving there, I could walk or cycle. This not only reduces any pollution that would have been emitted by a combustion engine but it would contribute to my overall health and in the end I would still have arrived at my destination. This is an approach I have started to take over the past few weeks. Rather than driving into university, I’ll set off 20 minutes earlier and walk it. There’s also that all important saving on fuel to consider as well. Recycling is something I was never really into when younger but when I moved into a student house and we were provided with recycling boxes for cans and bottles, it soon seemed the best idea to make full use of them. Being a student house, a lot of recycling gets done.

In terms of actions I could take to improve the sustainability of my life, there’s quite a lot that could be done. Trying to kick the habit of leaving every electrical appliance on comes to mind. Not only is it going to help towards energy saving and helping Earth out just a little bit more, it’ll cut back on my bills, so would seem the best course of action. Little things such as trying not to waste food, washing at 40 degrees, using recyclable goods all occur occasionally in my lifestyle but not enough. When it comes down to it, it’s purely whether I can be bothered to and in the end that’s the problem for all of us. Living in a society where it’s faster and easier to choose the less healthy/green/safe option means that the problem will most likely only get worse. The corporations that provide all the negative goods aren’t likely to change if it means they can still make a profit. There are those honourable ones that are trying their hardest to make a difference and the effects are becoming clearer.

In time to come, I’m sure at least one group of people studying sustainable development will start to change their ways.

(While writing this blog two cups of tea were drank and the washing was done at 40 degrees)

About Me

I thought before posting any serious blogs about geography, I might introduce myself and tell anyone reading this a bit about myself. My names Rich and I'm from Birmingham.

 I like tea.

Thats quite a big thing for me. I drink a lot of tea. Its supposedly healthy so no complaints there but it might weird you out a bit if you don't drink approximately 22 cups of tea a day, like me.

I quite like my music.

Self-explanatory. I listen to a lot of music. Most of the day. Usually while drinking tea. I enjoy listening, playing, watching and talking music. I like pretty much anything in the rock side of music but theres always exceptions. I play drums and am always looking to play with fellow musicians. I enjoy this genre called Progressive Rock but it's quite an aquired taste. Bit like tea really.

I enjoy geography.

Geography's always been my favourite subject. I hope to enter the field of meteorology when I finish University. If I study the subject I enjoy most then I should be able to enter a job that I'll enjoy. Hopefully.

I have a sense of humour.

But its dark and surreal and revolves around tea.