Making Light Work of IT.

As individuals we each have our own views upon sustainable development. We all know we should do out little bit. Our own tinny carbon footprint can be calculated (http://campaigns.direct.gov.uk/actonco2/home.html?gclid=COWc_ryP9ZgCFQxHQwodOHzx1w&gclid=COWc_ryP9ZgCFQxHQwodOHzx1w) , and how to reduce it is available to all to find. However do we really want to know this?

Are we not in denial of what we are capable of doing? As our individualist behaviour prevents us from further development. As we should act together to tackle the problems.

So there is no more excuses of its not down to me. Its for all of us to take charge of our own responsibilities and do our own little bit, as every little helps.

So we should turn off those lights when we are not in the room, turn off the tap when brushing our teeth and use the right bin for our waste so it can be recycled. As after all its all of our planet to look after and our home so look after it. Not only working individually can we help but also as teams of volunteers around the world work to clean up each others mess. So if we do our bit it, we wont have to rely on the few others who wish to devote their time to changing the damage already done.

But we should use the individualist behvaiour which all humans possess as insentive to change. As we are denying out children and grandchildren the same rights and oppertunities we was porvided with. Is this not enough to encourage people to change?

Also think of the money we can save by switching off out electical equiptment and not leaving it on over night. As according to the Governement we could save up to £300 a year. Ideas to do this are on http://campaigns.direct.gov.uk/actonco2/home/in-the-home/save-energy.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term={keyword}&utm_campaign=defra2008Q2&gclid=CMe-g87NypkCFQquGgodvkdDuw. So give it a go and see how big your carbon footprint is and what money your house hold could save.

UN debate

The debate, well while standing up there first was pretty nerve racking, with trembinling hands I managed to struggle through my notes. Which even I knew but was unable to prevent, was the heavy reliance I had upon them. However this debate developed my styles of learning such as communicating to others through email, research and debates.

It was interesting to hear how each country had found a different perspective on sustainable development. With a variation from starting from scratch on a plan to leading helping direct others in the path to sustainable living. As demonstrated through the varieties of approaches a greater step forward can be achieved united, learning from one another. However the US a large country with enormous power ignored their own weaknesses of their resource use to focus on others, such as Africa. Also how not all money would be spent in a similar way. As with the Solomon Islands the money would be to start a programme as nothing had been officially drawn up and implemented for around ten years, and then there would be Columbia using they money to help secure the country from gorilla warfare.

The research for this project was difficult, as there was a huge variation in the information available and what information was relevant. As the decision had to be made as to which direction you would portray about your country. As Lithuania has a high literacy rate but low unemployment rate. So it is difficult to grasp the state in which the country is in. As well as some information found was conflicting as to what the priorities of the country was. So to determine what was most reliable I ordered it according to the date in which it was published.

This project was enjoyable as it was a different style to lectures and greater understanding in how sustainability is a huge subject. I have learnt from it to rely less on notes and to perhaps look at a variety of aspects before choosing a direction.

Dirty Waste

So everyday without fail we all do it, and we all know it, we chuck that innocent can in the normal bin or a glass bottle. You might argue in defence that normally you are so good and take care turning lights off and other small differences. As we are bombarded with messages telling us that it all adds up!

BUT not everyone is doing there part. It is astonishing to examine the vast range within such a small area as Northampton. As within ENC area (2006/7) only 26.8% of household rubbish was recycled compared to DDC (2006/7) where 47% of house hold waste was recycled. So what can we put this range of 20.2% (just over a fifth) down to? Is it lack of knowledge? Lack of insentive? or laziness?

Well in my opinion we have all been educated as to where the average 201,616 tonnes residential waste per household during 2006 on average in Northampton annually, goes. The LANDFILL. We are have constant leaflets fly through our letter boxes telling us how we should dispose of our waste correctly. But they are ignored with all other junk mail through our letterbox.

So if the education of recycling is out there then there must be another reason for the variation between areas household waste. One reason for this could be the variation within incentives between areas in recycling policies, such as fines for overfilling bins, or paying per the bag of non-recycled household rubbish. however looking at the Main Collection Services Offered by WCAs in 2006/07 there is little variation between areas within the services. However there is a vast gap within the quantity of household waste which is recycled. so what can this be down to?

In my opinion this is due to peoples' view of recycling. I encountered hostility while working at Reading Festival this year as a Green Messenger. And as the title implies the job was to inform them of the recycling projects around the camp sites, such as collecting empty cans to get a new can and collecting cups in the arena to get 10p per a cup. Now that's incentive, as its soo easy when the bands finish the tents empty and its easy pickings within ten minutes 3 of us had made £8 which went great use!

Despite the appealing incentives people said that there was no point to recycling and that they don't and never will. so how can we change this brick wall?

Well one confirmed method of action is shock tactics. Confront people with what is really happening. As for many people seeing a great pile of rubbish in front of them would disgust them and might cause action. Along with this drastic method recycling should be made easier, as many view it as hassle. Saving old boxes for weeks, with little space to store them. Also many people are unaware of the simple recycling of batteries, for me they have to be taken to the recycling center on the other side of town. Its not really viable to pay a visit every time a battery is empty or even the same with a light bulb.

Action plans within councils should consider making recycling accessible e.g. battery collection within super markets. As well as greater incentives such as monetary rewards and make recycled goods at the fraction of the price of goods made from the raw materials.

Councils and individuals have made a great deal of effort to recycle within recent years as within Northampton as a whole, the recycling rate of household waste has raised from 18% in 2001/02 to 39.2 in 2006/07. So the only way now is up with a few more incentives the rate can be a lot higher.



Northamptonshire Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy
http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B63E7599-1BCC-42DF-BF9E-8BC330278515/0/NJMWMSStrategyFINAL.pdf

Media

'bad news sells papers’ How reliable do you think UK newspaper reports are about climate change? To what extent to UK newspaper reports link climate change to ‘sustainable development’?

We are forever told as children 'do not believe everything the TV tells you'. So does this apply to Newspapers as well? Individually we all have our own opinion upon this with a great deal of stigma attached to the types of newspapers people read. As the Broadsheet is aimed at an avid reader who expects great long winded articles containing an intellectual aspect of the news with a large quantity of facts. However the opinion of the Tabloid news paper is that it contains funny pictures with little informative writing. But are we still to trust that either type of new paper is providing us with the correct, mutual information?

Boykoff did a study into 'The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK tabloids', this showed that the main features with tabloid articles had headlines containing mainly tones of fear, misery and doom. But is it all that way? Well we have done a mini-test of this within Broadsheet newspapers and it reflected the similar results in that few articles contained a positive out look on global warming such as achievements.

Taking newspapers at face value it appears that humans are entirely to blame with little effort made to undo our mistakes. i can take personal experience of continual bad news reported within my area. As continuous flood warnings was dominating the local headlines within Caversham, with predictions that the River Thames will breach its banks within July 2007. The headlines stimulated local shop keepers of the precinct of Caversham to invest in sand bags around the door despite it being over 200yards from the riverbank. With continual high alert the residents expected the water to come yet it never did. However the positive outcome after the worry was never published.

Newspapers vary so much as to whether they link to sustainable development, but it can be said that within broadsheet newspapers there is more in depth knowledge than within the tabloids and it also gives a more idea of sustainable development and research advances. It is up to the reader as in how literally to take the newspapers but always be remembered that this is only one opinion.

Boykoff, M.T. (2008) The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK tabloids. Political Geography 27 (5) 549-569

Cars!!!

So as normal I turn up late but can I really be blamed? I’ve had 2 stand by the side of a blustery road with drizzle stinging my eyes and the loud road of lorries in my ear as no bus turned up for over 40minutes. All attempts of looking reasonable have gone to the wind; this can not be my fault. Being one of the very few (well it felt that way) who did not learn to drive immediately after turning 17, I rely heavily upon public transport or the generosity of others.

On those nasty days in which it seems like an eternity stood within the cold, hopping within my own car and zooming off seems like such an attractive alternative. But is it really with the household spending increasing along with the volume of traffic, it is apparent that people are prepared to fork out on the huge financial commitment of a car. This is despite the constant bombardment of information of why we should not be using our own private transport.

The Government are continually on at us as to how it is affecting the environment such as the fact that; Carbon Dioxide (C02) admissions have increased 4% between 1990 and 2006. But what does that mean to everyone? Well really nothing there is no immediate effects felt by the individual person other than getting to the next place and splashing the losers who stand and the bus stops in the cold. The only price paid for not thinking of this gas given off is the pinch of the pocket from the Government, with high fuel prices and higher tax rates, though what is a few extra pounds to people who have already paid out a fortune to drive around!

But the Government have recently come up with applying the thought of money to encourage lower admissions rate, with the pitch of: “save one months fuel over a year”. This pitch is not encouraging the use of alternatives as they don’t work if there is already the luxury of a car only to lower the damage the individuals current behaviours cause. This is sustainability as it’s not changing the individuals’ behaviour of using a car but making it less wasteful of limited resources.

This can be done through a variety of ways such as; greener cars, driving smoother, shifting to a higher gear at the right time, getting in the car and going, switching the engine off when not in motion, having the correct tire pressure, sticking to the speed limit, removing unnecessary weight and only using the air conditioning and electrical devices when needed.

But is this really going to happen? As like dusting the bike off from deep in the garage it takes active commitment such as keep a petrol car at 2500rpms, as driving at 37mph in 3rd gear uses 25% more fuel than in 5th gear, or it takes an investment of a new greener car. Only time will tell but as more people take to the roads whether they are ready to step back and think of an alternative.