There are many environmental issues that have come about due to the realisation of the concept of global warming, for example recycling, using low emission cars and using sustainable methods of transport. So how can individuals make a difference and if they can to what extent is it.
Obviously it would depend on the subject that the individual is trying to make a difference in, but in this case its sustainable development. I don't think that individuals have the power to make a direct difference, but they do make a indirect one. The fact that they can influence people around them would make an indirect difference. For example when this university didn't have separate coloured bins for different kind of rubbish. When you had to go to the bottle bank the individual that would go wouldn't make a difference on a worldwide scale but could influence people to do the same. It was these individuals that properly helped towards us getting the coloured recycling bins. so i would say its a indirect difference at the time.
Numbers count for example the other day when 49 protesters trespassed the 3rd biggest airport in England Stanstead and held it to a standstill and lead to more than 50 cancellations. They were protesting against the use of planes, and how bad they are to the environment. Say if 1 person tried to storm the airport they would have got arrested almost straight away, when there were 49 they made a difference. The individual does not have the power to make a direct difference unless they are in a situation of power. For example the sustainability officer at Northampton Uni decisions make a difference towards sustainability development. So overall i belive that if you want to make a difference you need to have a big group with a good plan to make a difference.
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Thursday, 20 November 2008
Feedback on Exercise
When we first got assigned China as our country i thought we had a good chance to do well, the fact that the largest construction boom in world history is ongoing in China, they are a major consumer of resources and energy and their environmental record is one of the worst in the world. Whilst researching for the exercise we did find it quite hard to find China's sustainable development strategies. I was surprised at the fact that china is the only country in the world where its rainforest's are increasing in size. I was also surprised that one of there main environmental problems is desertification. After thinking about it i then realised that China is still a developing country and a poor country, so their are not to focused on sustainable development at the moment, hence why they don't have to join the Kyoto yet.
Our presentation didn't really go to plan, the main reason was time. We ran out of time before we could even begin to finish our presentation. I didn't realise how quickly the time would go. Otherwise i thought i did OK, but i was rather scared and do not like doing presentations. I thought Cat did really well especially with the tough questions at the end. I would also say that we were not really prepared for the questions either which kind of took us by surprise.
I thought our handout was good, it had a wide range of sustainable development strategy's and important relevant facts about China. If we did this exercise again i would definitely limit the information as much as i could to fit it in the time constraint. I would not read out from my handout with my head down as easy as it is to do. I would have post it notes to spark my memories about topics and i would talk about them and engage more with the audience.
I'm going to be honest i dreaded this task from when it was set, i really don't like doing presentations and i am really bad at them, but the only way to improve is to do them so this did benefit me. I also did learn allot about China's sustainable development strategy's and other countries. I definitely learned allot about giving presentations and how to improve and research for presentations.
Thursday, 6 November 2008
Recycling in Northamptonshire
Northamptonshire introduced a Joint municipal waste management strategy to increase recycling and reduce waste. In 2001/2 the % of household waste that was recycled was 18%, since the new strategy has gone in place it has increased to 28% in 2004/5 and is predicted to reach 39.2% in 2007/8. The government has set targets of 50% by 2020, at the rate Northamptonshire recycling is increasing they are well on there way.
The reason why recycling has become such a big issue is because getting rid of waste is expensive, its becoming more expensive to use landfill sites its predicted £48 tax per tonne by 2010. There are many other obvious reasons such as its better for the environment reusing what we have instead of making more. Many of the resources we use are slowly running out or cannot be replaced quickly enough. We save allot of energy by recycling for example making new aluminium cans out of recycled cans uses 20% less energy than normal. If we recycle green waste this will save valuable space in landfill sites, and will get a product out of it.
The new strategy has made recycling easier by having new waste services on a regular basis. Also having colour coded bins, bags which makes recycling allot easier. They collect paper, bottles cans and organic waste up to every 2 weeks. Also bottle banks and paper recycling places around town are more common.
Recycling means people have to make effort with their waste and this is the problem. Many people are too lazy to organise their waste, so how could we make recycling easier to improve recycling rates. One way to provide people with an incentive to recycle would be to charge a little bit extra for bottled drinks, cans etc and when you take them back to the store empty they give you the money you paid back. They do this in Germany, they charge 10 cent extra and it does work. If taking you bottles to be recycled means you will get money back more people would do it. Businesses could label their products whether they are recyclable or not and use less packaging to reduce waste.
Northamptonshire currently has a total household waste of 345,329 tonnes and 135,329 of this is being recycled. in Northampton 450kg of waste is produced per person, the strategy aims to reduce this to 225kg by 2020. Recycling is definatly on the increase and the new strategy seems to be working.
The reason why recycling has become such a big issue is because getting rid of waste is expensive, its becoming more expensive to use landfill sites its predicted £48 tax per tonne by 2010. There are many other obvious reasons such as its better for the environment reusing what we have instead of making more. Many of the resources we use are slowly running out or cannot be replaced quickly enough. We save allot of energy by recycling for example making new aluminium cans out of recycled cans uses 20% less energy than normal. If we recycle green waste this will save valuable space in landfill sites, and will get a product out of it.
The new strategy has made recycling easier by having new waste services on a regular basis. Also having colour coded bins, bags which makes recycling allot easier. They collect paper, bottles cans and organic waste up to every 2 weeks. Also bottle banks and paper recycling places around town are more common.
Recycling means people have to make effort with their waste and this is the problem. Many people are too lazy to organise their waste, so how could we make recycling easier to improve recycling rates. One way to provide people with an incentive to recycle would be to charge a little bit extra for bottled drinks, cans etc and when you take them back to the store empty they give you the money you paid back. They do this in Germany, they charge 10 cent extra and it does work. If taking you bottles to be recycled means you will get money back more people would do it. Businesses could label their products whether they are recyclable or not and use less packaging to reduce waste.
Northamptonshire currently has a total household waste of 345,329 tonnes and 135,329 of this is being recycled. in Northampton 450kg of waste is produced per person, the strategy aims to reduce this to 225kg by 2020. Recycling is definatly on the increase and the new strategy seems to be working.
Thursday, 30 October 2008
How reliable newspapers reports are about climate change and how they link it to sustainable development
Every morning newspapers are distributed across the country, It is one of the most influential ways of providing the nation with news as well as TV and radio. But just how reliable are there reports about climate change. In this blog i will discuss how reliable some reports are by looking at a number of articles on climate change in various papers and if they linked this to sustainable development.
Looking at articles on climate change in The Sun i found allot of strange articles for exp 'Swannin about in sunny Siberia'. This was about how swans apparently were a week late in arriving in Gloucester from Russia. Also 'Experts fear swans will forget way to Gloucester, if they
stay to long in Russia'. They provide no proof for this claim they just say 'Experts fear' . There relation to climate change was that a spokesman said 'its been allot warmer for allot longer'. Another article i found in The Sun was 'Beer prices could increase' this is about how a scientist has warned climate change will 'properly' cause a decrease in the production of barley in parts of NZ and Australia. Key word here is 'Properly' no factual proof or reliable source to relate to. These few articles in the Sun were very small and lacked any clear evidence of being fact. What i found looking at different kinds of papers was that The Sun and the Mirror were very bold in there headlines and statements, but didn't back it up with any evidence or sources. The Mirror for example had a headline 'St Andrews under sea by 2050' the quote which though me of this article was 'could be lost to rising sea levels' there was no data or evidence to prove this but instead 'could'.
Looking at articles in the times i found they had more reliable sources and less bold statements. For exampl
e ' Climate change will hit tropics as bad as polar regions' they used there information from a reliable source such as the American Geophysical Union (AGU). This article is much more factual than The Suns or The Mirrors, its data was formed from a conference that the AGU had. Its not just a 'spokesman said' or 'experts fear'. They also went on to say about how the AGU launched an attack on Gordan Brown over new generation coal fired power stations. So in this article they have linked climate change to a sustainable development issue. The Times did have allot of sustainable development article's i thought. Also looking at the Guardian i found this was similar to The Times having articles on climate change and linking them to sustainable development.
Overall i found that in The Sun and The Mirror, there headlines are mainly there to draw the eye in of a parser by backed up by little evidence or strong sources. When The Times and Guardian was the other way round factual statements backed up by strong sources and evidence. So some papers are quite reliable and others are not of what i looked at.
Looking at articles on climate change in The Sun i found allot of strange articles for exp 'Swannin about in sunny Siberia'. This was about how swans apparently were a week late in arriving in Gloucester from Russia. Also 'Experts fear swans will forget way to Gloucester, if they
stay to long in Russia'. They provide no proof for this claim they just say 'Experts fear' . There relation to climate change was that a spokesman said 'its been allot warmer for allot longer'. Another article i found in The Sun was 'Beer prices could increase' this is about how a scientist has warned climate change will 'properly' cause a decrease in the production of barley in parts of NZ and Australia. Key word here is 'Properly' no factual proof or reliable source to relate to. These few articles in the Sun were very small and lacked any clear evidence of being fact. What i found looking at different kinds of papers was that The Sun and the Mirror were very bold in there headlines and statements, but didn't back it up with any evidence or sources. The Mirror for example had a headline 'St Andrews under sea by 2050' the quote which though me of this article was 'could be lost to rising sea levels' there was no data or evidence to prove this but instead 'could'.Looking at articles in the times i found they had more reliable sources and less bold statements. For exampl
e ' Climate change will hit tropics as bad as polar regions' they used there information from a reliable source such as the American Geophysical Union (AGU). This article is much more factual than The Suns or The Mirrors, its data was formed from a conference that the AGU had. Its not just a 'spokesman said' or 'experts fear'. They also went on to say about how the AGU launched an attack on Gordan Brown over new generation coal fired power stations. So in this article they have linked climate change to a sustainable development issue. The Times did have allot of sustainable development article's i thought. Also looking at the Guardian i found this was similar to The Times having articles on climate change and linking them to sustainable development.Overall i found that in The Sun and The Mirror, there headlines are mainly there to draw the eye in of a parser by backed up by little evidence or strong sources. When The Times and Guardian was the other way round factual statements backed up by strong sources and evidence. So some papers are quite reliable and others are not of what i looked at.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
The Search for Sustainable Private Cars
Nearly everyone I know as soon as they hit 17 started to learn to drive and also to save up to purchase their own vehicle. In our day and age having a car in the family is a necessity. There are obvious reasons for this, they give us independence we don’t have to rely on bus or train timetables, they are easy to use, and an affordable way of getting around quickly and safely.
The sustainable development indicator 2008 for private cars shows that co2 emissions have increased by 4% between 1990-2006. In the same time the total car km travelled has increased by 20%. Private cars are unsustainable not only do they add to the greenhouse gases they are using a resource that is limited. So why do we use cars? Cars give us freedom to go anywhere within reason at any time, we don’t have to wait around for public transport. Also public transport for example trains are very expensive I would say it is cheaper to drive to destinations. Buses are cheap but are very slow and can triple the time it would take to travel. So what other options do we have for sustainable effective travel?
There are new cars that give out lower emissions such as Honda’s new FCX Clarity which is the first commercial production 
of a zero emission, hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicle. It runs on electricity produced by combining hydrogen with oxygen and emits water vapour. There are also electric cars but the problem with these new advanced more sustainable cars is that they are very expe
nsive so not everyone can afford these. Another option is Biofuel a renewable solar energy store made from plants. The problem with this being that its grown on land that might otherwise be used to feed people, and its limited to very few parts of the country so far. those where alternatives to car options other options to travel consist of using your bike more for short journeys, using public transport instead and try walking. But obviously these are not the desirable options.
of a zero emission, hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicle. It runs on electricity produced by combining hydrogen with oxygen and emits water vapour. There are also electric cars but the problem with these new advanced more sustainable cars is that they are very expe
nsive so not everyone can afford these. Another option is Biofuel a renewable solar energy store made from plants. The problem with this being that its grown on land that might otherwise be used to feed people, and its limited to very few parts of the country so far. those where alternatives to car options other options to travel consist of using your bike more for short journeys, using public transport instead and try walking. But obviously these are not the desirable options. At the moment there is no straight alternative to using unsustainable cars, there are new cars that are way more sustainable and I believe will be the future for sustainable private cars. I can’t see public transport being preferred when trains are very expensive and buses are unreliable and slow. The only effective replacement for unsustainable private cars would be a new sustainable fuel, and a lot of money is going into research in order to get this. For exp Exxon Mobil are:
‘Working with the scientific and business communities on leading research to identify economically viable technologies that can meet future energy demand while dramatically reducing global GHG emissions. This includes work on advanced fuels, lubricants and combustion technologies, as well as support for the Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) at Stanford University, which represents the largest-ever privately funded research effort in low-GHG energy.’
‘Working with the scientific and business communities on leading research to identify economically viable technologies that can meet future energy demand while dramatically reducing global GHG emissions. This includes work on advanced fuels, lubricants and combustion technologies, as well as support for the Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) at Stanford University, which represents the largest-ever privately funded research effort in low-GHG energy.’
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)