Do I live in a 'Sustainable Community' ?

My Super Out-put Area is Luton 021F. It contains approximately 13 roads, and is about 0.55 miles from the Town Centre, which is a 10minute walk from the closest edge of the SOA. In the 2001 census a total of 742 males and 636 females recorded, with an overall population for the SOA of 1,378. Although 895 people of the SOA population in 2001 were of 'Good health'.

According to the 2001 census; 25.63% of people between the ages of 16-74, who lived in my SOA at the time had now qualifications. This is almost one quarter of the population of the SOA (353 people) with no qualification. Even though this stastic may at first sound surprisingly high, it is more surprising to think that the percentage for the East of England is 27.94%, and the percentage for England as a whole is 28.85%.

To what extent your ward/SOA resembles a 'sustainable community' ?

What is a 'Sustainable Community' ?

As defined by the 2003 Sustainable Communities Plan, a 'sustainable community' is;

"...not just a significant increase in the resources and major reforms of housing and planning, but a new approach to how we build and what we build..."

Going by the definition above, my SOA does not greatly resemble any real aspects of a 'sustainable community'. There are no current developments on a large scale, or very noticeable on-going at present. Although there has been a recent alteration to a public recreational park on the border of the SOA. The park has been created to be more suitable and more pleasing to the eye, to almost blend into the surrounding. The use of bright colours is most likely to create awareness for the users of the park.

A recent development at the one of the far corners of my SOA, was the redevelopment of former head office of the insurance giant Zurich Plc and the former Luton Chamber of Commerce into the new "Icon Hotel" which was featured on Channel 4's Ruth Watson's Hotel Rescue. This was shown a few months ago and saw the building and its use, be totally transformed into a sucessful new business. However, apart from this, I cannot recall any real developments in recent years which could be counted as being sustainable development. The reason I see this as a sustainable development is because the building has been abandoned for several year, maybe more. Although now it has a new lease of life, with the present occupants making revenue, they should be able to take care of any necessary repair. In the bigger picture it saves pollution from the building being demolished and having another built in its place. You could argue that this would be the same even if the building had remained abandoned, but then it may have needed to be demolished after a point. You could potentially also argue that over the next few years (providing the hotel stays over and operational), the transportation used in bring guests to and from the hotel could out-weigh the pollution which would have been produced from the demolishion of the old build. Having the building now as a hotel, is good for the local economy as the hotel brings in more visitors to the town and is conveniently close to the town's main shopping centre.

The Icon Hotel

To what extent do you think that your ward/SOA does not resemble a 'sustainable community'?

I don't think that my SOA does resemble many aspects of a sustainable community because there is no real evidence to show any kind of development except that stated above. This leads me to think that my community is not a sustainable community. Perhap maybe it is... because if there is no development can this too not be sustainable? For example, if a coastal town grew to a large size and then places a 'green belt zone' around itself. Then expanded further to the edge of the 'green belt zone', it would not be able to expand further still unless it build into the 'green belt zone' as it could not expand into the sea. Could this town then be sustainable if it was able to thrive at its present size? In the definition given above, it states that a 'sustainable community' involves; "...a new approach to how we build and what we build... ". If the town could not expand and grow out-wards, it could still be sustainable if it were able to find 'a new approach' to how we build, allowing it to expand and grow within itself. This, in theory at least would then make it more of a 'sustainable community'.

REFERENCES

Office of National Statistics (N.D). Neighbourhood Statistics [online]. Available from: Ward and Super out-put area statistics
(Accessed: 1st April 2010)

Channel 4 (2010). Ruth Watson's hotel Rescue: Weds, 8pm, C4 [online]. Available from:
Image of the Icon Hotel, from Ruth Watson's Hotel Rescue on Channel 4 (Accessed 31st March 2010).

The Icon Hotel (2010). Information and bookings [online]. (Updated March 2010) Available at:
www.iconhotelluton.com/ (Accessed: 31st March 2010).

Is transport sustainable?

At the moment the theme in class is sustainable travel. Transport undoubtedly has had a major influence on economic and social development facilitating the movement of goods, people and ideas. Greater accessibility, mobility and communication has shaped the type of global society we live in today.

But is there a cost? Environmentalists will emphasize the problems associated with unlimited travel - depletion of fossil fuels, local air pollution, emissions of greenhouse gases, congestion and accidents, destruction of the countryside and the expansion of land under concrete to name but a few. Even our over-reliance on motorized transport has been linked to a general lack of fitness in the population at large.

What are your views?

Perhaps it is a good thing that we live in a world (or more rather, a part of the world) where we are able to travel almost as we please and go to practically anywhere, without any real restrictions except the cost of travel. Be it in the air in a plane, by sea on a ferry or by land in a car, or any other means of transport. However, for every journey someone makes there is still the same things produced: pollution. Even with new technologies such as the hydrogen fuel-cell cars, there is still pollution in the form of Water Vapour. It is controversially and widely debated that water vapour is one of the main contributor to 'The Greenhouse Effect'. Therefore even if everyone changed over to use Hydrogen fuel-cell cars there still be a significant problem of 'The Greenhouse effect'. There would also still be a problem if everyone used an electric car because unless it is possible to find a new, alternative way of producing enough power to run the cars, there will still be pollution produced in the generation of the electricity. Additionally there will be further pollution created in the manufacture of the vehicles.

Is there really a transport problem?

There most definately is a transport problem. Everywhere you go, and almost everywhere you look in the United Kingdom, there is transportation in one form or another. If you look in the sky on a clear day there is a high chance you will see aeroplane contrails. If you look at or travel on most roads in the UK, there is usually some transport in one form or another. In the majority of cities in the UK, but also in recent decade now in towns too, there is a lot of congestion during 'Peak times', also known as Rush hour. This is a result of everyone trying to travel at the same time and creating large traffic jams, sometimes known as 'bottle necks' because it is like everyone is trying to get through a small space all at once. This is much like in a bottle when tipped up-side-down and all the liquid tries to come out, although only a limited amount can escape at a time. Congestion in some places has become so bad, for example in the City of London in 2003, Ken Livingstone (the Major of London at the time) imposed a 'Conjestion Charging' scheme in an attempt to reduce the amount of traffic in the city. Surely this begs the question... can a city, or for that matter, a country have a sustainable transport network if there needs to be congestion charging? The answer is, it cannot.

Do the benefits of motorized transport outweigh the costs?

The main benefits of having motorized transportation are that it is reasonably efficient, fast, affordable and convenient mode of transporting people, goods and services from one place to another. This suits most companies on a large and small scale as well as the individual (driving their cars).

As more and more people are taking to the road and driving on more single occuapancy journeys, this is increasing the amount of pollution being produced. This also increases the risk to human health as there will be more poisonous and harmful gases in the air such as Carbon Monoxide which has been linked to some people suffering from breathing difficulties.

Likewise, with more vehicles on the roads, there will be a greater effect on the environment. One main outcome from having more traffic on the roads is that there will be more animals knocked-down. Also, as more and more vehicles will be on the roads, this will increase conjestion and this usually means that councils, etc. typically choose to build more roads. However, of course this means that some land usually has to be allocated for the construction of the roads. Very often these new roads are built in the form of 'by-passes' and these tend to go around towns and cities; passing through fields and sometimes green-field site. The outcome of this is that the noise from the new roads can cause some animals to move away from the roads and into new habitats. Although the bigger impact from new roads is that the land which these are built is cleared and in this process, some habitats are destroyed.

The present transportation system is a very key part of the country as it enables the movement of people, goods and services throughout the country and the UK. If for example, all transportation (roads, rail, etc.) were removed over-night, the whole country's economy could collapse. This is why it is so to maintain the present transportation network. One way in which the present transportation network is currently being expanded is with the widening of the M1 motorway. This is to allow a greater number of vehicles to travel on the road, especially as the majority of goods is transported around the country by roads nowadays.

Are there any minor (or perhaps major) changes you personally feel could make our present transport system more sustainable?

In my opinion, one thing that could make the present transport system more sustainable is if people drove less often and for shorter distances. This seems like an obivous thing and has been suggested by the government's Department of Tranport... By driving just a few miles a week, if everyone did this, it would still help to reduce the amount of pollution being created in the local area. If this was then rolled out on a national scale it could have a far greater influence to reducing the total pollution caused by transport.

Public transport is something that is widely debated as to whether it is value for money. I can personally say from using public transport for many years, it can be expensive, but more expensive for short journeys. There is a lot that could be done to improve the persent public transport system such as, ensuring that buses arrive at the times which are published on the timetables issued. Public transport is best avoided in extremely bad weather conditions like snow and in these conditions it may be seen as being more beneficial to travel by car. This said, it is not very safe to do so and therefore by using public transport you at least have an excuse for being late to your destination. Overall the trains are much more efficient and punctual than buses.

If public transport was nationalised or at leasts some routes were nationalised this could greatly increase the number of people using it, because it then the costs could be reduced. Although if public transport was subsided by the Department of Transport this could encourage a far larger number of people to use public transport. Better still... as outlandish as it may sound, what if Public Transport was made FREE?

REFERENCES

Larry West (2010). What is the Greenhouse Effect? [online]. Available from:
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/greenhouse.htm
(Accessed: 25th March 2010).

Transport for London (2010). Congestion Charging [online]. Available from: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/ (Accessed 26th March 2010).

Department for Transport (N.D) Public Transport [online]. Available from: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/public/
(Accessed: 26th March 2010).

It's your country too... so who is going to run it?

Education for sustainable development also includes learners making aware of their role as 'active citizens'. studies of 'citizenship' are intended to equip students with their knowledge and skills needed for effective and democratic participation. it helps learners become informed, active citizens who have the confidence and conviction to work together to take action in their communities.

It is important to know about rights, responsibilities, duties and freedoms and about laws, justice and democracy. Citizenship encourages respect for different national, religious and ethnic identities.

For the blogprompt this week first we want you to do a bit of research.


Find out:

What is the constituency in which you live: Luton South

Who is your local MP (Name and party,etc): Margret Moran

What is the name of your local council: Luton Borough Council??

Which political party dominates your local council: Labour

Secondly

2010 is election year.
What is your attitude concerning people who are not planning to vote in the general election?

I think that it is outrageous that people can even consider not voting in the general election (if they are of voting age)!! If they are not registered, that may be for a reason however, what reason can possibly be good enough to warrant not voting, especially women. This is because Emily Pankhurst did not front the 'women's movement' for no reason. She did it because it was something she strongly believed in, something she was passionate about. If Emilywas still alive, I am sure she would be astonished to find that there are many women in the UK who do not vote, even after what she did to enable women to have the opportunity to vote. Although, is that all it is nowadays? Is it just a simple matter of having the opportunity? Or is it more than that?

A vote... it an opportunity, a chance to make a choice. It is a chance to make a decision for the party which best represents your views. It is also a chance to perhaps, if you wish, to make a decision at random. For example you could make a vote based on the name of the party you like the best (without even reading what they represent). A vote can be a very powerful thing. It can come down to a small number of votes which decide who wins the election. Even though the vote is calculated by the number of seats in parliment, it only takes a few votes for a party to secure a seat.

A vote is not something which should be wasted, or used lightly. A vote is the way in which society and communities decide how they want to be run between elections. "It only takes a small amount of snow to cause an avalanche." The same can be seen with an election, if enough people can be swayed to vote for a particular party, the party will gain seats. In the election in 2009 to decide on EU parties, even the BNP managed to gain a seat.

"The Labour Party will fight every inch of the way. We've known what it is to lose and we've known what it is to win and we are determined to fight our way to win. And not for our interests but for the interests of the country."

Gordon Brown on the General Election (January 3rd, 2010)

http://www.greatpersonalities.com/gordon-brown/index.htm

David Cameron - Conservatives

"We will be tested. I will be tested. I'm ready for that - and so I believe, are the British people. So yes, there is a steep climb ahead. But I tell you this. The view from the summit will be worth it."

David Cameron at the Conservative/'Tory' Conference(October 8th, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/08/david-cameron-speech-key-quotes

Nick Clegg - Liberal Democrats ('Lib dems')

"I believe that liberalism is the thread that holds together everything that this country stands for. Pull out that thread and the fabric of our nation unravels. Above all our politics is broken, out of touch with people, out of touch with the modern world, and that is why I have one simple ambition, to change Britain, to make it the liberal country I believe the British people want it to be."

Nick Clegg after winning the Lib Dem leadership contest (December 18th, 2007)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7150426.stm

OR

Could there be someone-else? Is it reasonable to think that someone different to the usual three main parties could have an influence on the potential outcome of the next General election because after all, anything is possible.

What main concerns do you have that may influence your vote?

One thing that may influence my vote at the General Election is where a party set out targets in their speeches but do not follow-through when they are elected. I am sure this is not only going to influence my vote but also many other people's votes because I have heard people talking about this recently. Therefore it must be playing on their minds as they consider the different parties and their policies in the run-up to the election.

Another factor which could have an influence on my vote in the General Election is parties who have strong, controversial views. An example of a party who have view like these would be the 'British National Party'. It has been said that the 'BNP' are "Racist" because of some of their strong views.

An additional factor which could have an influence on which party I chose to vote for in the General Election is where parties have conflicting, or overlapping policies. For example, if the Labour party talked about a policy to do with housing and then the Conservative party also talked about a policy to do with housing this could make choosing between the two parties more difficult. It could potentially mean examining each of the parties' policies to compare the difference to see which is more favourable.

References

Below is a link to find local MPs:

NSPD (2008) Find your MP [Online](Updated February 11th 2010) Available at: http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/constituencies/luton-south [Accessed: February 23rd 2010].

Below is the link to the quote by Gordon Brown (January 3rd, 2010)

Great Personalities (2010) Gordon Brown Quotes [Online] (Updated January 3rd 2010) Available at: http://www.greatpersonalities.com/gordon-brown/index.htm [Accessed: February 23rd 2010].

Below is the link to the quote by David Cameron

Guardian News and Media Limited (2010) David Cameron's speech: the key quotes [Online] (Updated: October 8th 2009) Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/08/david-cameron-speech-key-quotes [Accessed: February 23rd 2010].

Below is the link to the quote by Nick Clegg

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) (2010) In Quotes: Reaction to result [Online] (Updated: December 18th 2007) Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7150426.stm [Accessed: February 24th 2010].

People question mark
Accessed 2nd March 2010
http://s3.images.com/huge.10.50408.JPG

Gordon Brown pic
Accessed 2nd March 2010
http://www.preset.org/images/gordonbrown.jpg

David Cameron pic
Accessed 2nd March 2010
http://mkcommunists.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/david-cameron.jpg

Nick Clegg pic
Accessed 2nd March 2010
http://www.novamedia1999.co.uk/wmd/images/celebrities/nick_clegg_large.jpg

This year (Santa?)... I'd like a "Sustainable Christmas, Please"

Christmas!

It is a time when british people as well as many other people gather together to enjoy and take part in a festival. To many it has important religious significance... although an increasing number of others, that religious significance is fading. This is an issue, but it is not the issue in question.

NO! The more pressing issue is "What impact does Christmas have?" Not in the way of how people behave differently in spending time with family and friends. More by way of perhaps excess and waste? A lot of people nowadays go day to day, and throughout the year may do some or a lot or recycling and other activities which help to improve the environment. However, there are a large percentage of the population who do nothing and at Christmas this is made all the worse because there is more waste produced by a family and even on an individual basis. This waste all needs to go somewhere and if it is not sorted into recycling, it typically will go out into the household waste bins.

At the end of the day, there are just over 6.8 billion people on Earth, not all of these people will receive a gift for christmas, although a large percentage are most likely to (http://www.worldometer.info/). Two thirds of these people most likely get a form of present for christmas, perhaps not a commercialised present like people in more economically developed countries (M.E.D.C's), all the same there will be an extremely large amount of waste (not only commercially but individually too). If all of these people were to receive the same gifts, all of equal value and in the same packaging, etc. That means there would be an extremely large amount of waste to dispose of. If this were to happen annually, combined with an ever increasing global population it means that year on year there would be more and more waste to dispose of, so let us think, is this sustainable?

Perhaps looking at the actual amount of waste produced annually for the celebration of Christmas it may appear to be a near unachieveable challenge to be able to reduce this to a level which is then sustainable. However, with the correct approach and enough co-operation from the right people; namely high positioned politicians and world leaders, it could be made possible. There are several ways to do this, one would be to incorporate this issue into talk similar to those currently being held in Copenhagen over Climate Change. Even though this may in comparison be a relatively small issue, it is an issue all the same and if unmonitored it could easily get out of control. Although it could be connected to the plans and schemes which are already in place for waste management and recycling. The main point is, if it was possible to reduce the amount of waste which needed to be disposed of, rather than how to dispose of it was made possible, this would be a better approach to handle the problem. This is because if there is less to deal with, then the problem in this case, the amount of waste can be resolved more rapidly.

Excessive use of lights and fireworks will most likely be less of an issue as energy prices become more and more expensive and fireworks become more restricted through new legislation, with regard to health and safety as well as more strict age restriction.

Over-eating and self-indulgence will also most likely decrease as a result of rapidly increasing food prices and general increases in price of all products. Additionally excessive spending will probably continue at in the short-term as businesses compete between eachother with offers to attract customers. Although, there is the risk that at some point there may be a change where people become more reserved with spending as they less money to spend because the cost of living may have increased.

IN A CHANGED WORLD:

Life in general may be very different to how it is at present. For example, nowadays people are able to go out and make purchases of almost anything there and then and take it home all in the same day. However, in the future there may be many thing which could have changed, restricting the manufacture of many products if the companies which (used to) produce these products choose to refuse to sign international agreements to cut emissions. One country in particular which may suffer largely from this could be China. This is because China is a relatively fast developing country, at the same time it is a large country with near to one fifth of the world's population and one of the biggest contributors to Carbon Emissions. The problem with this may be that, because China and Asia produce a lot of products, and toys which are typically sold at Christmas but also throughout the year, if these countries are resticted through carbon emission limits it may mean that many products will be produced. If these products are not produced, then the products will not be sold and there will be less packaging to dispose of as a result. However, if these products are unattainable people may purchase products which have more packaging. Therefore it may appear to be a lost cause.

There are most likely to be many other ways in which Chistmas and other festivals both with and without religious significance may be different in a changed world and even the near future. Some of these may include what food is accepted to be sustainably eaten, this may mean that turkey for example may not be able to be eaten on Christmas day? Another way may be people are limited to how many or how long they are allowed to put Christmas lights and illuminations on their houses, and in gardens, etc. This could be in relation to cutting individual carbon emissions to coincide with national carbon emissions. It could also be connected to the introduction of new 'Smart Meters' which are being introduced to all of the 25 million homes in the United Kingdom in the next 10 years as it planned that they will be in every house be the end of 2020. These 'smart meters' are supposed to be able to totally dispose of estimated bills and ensure that both the customer and the supplier are able to keep an accurate account of the amount of both gas and electricity that each household is using. It will also give a display of how much the energy already used will cost, this will serve the purpose of having an instant bill there to keep an eye on what you have used. This is hoped to encourage the households to use less energy as they are able learn what they are using. This should also resolve disputes when it comes to billing because if there a constant display, there is no real excuse to not know how much it will cost when it comes to paying the bills. However, this will come a very high price to the consumer as the suppliers are going to charge the costs of fitting these new meters to the customer, is this really fair when it is a way for the customer to REDUCE their energy usage and inturn their carbon footprint.

In conclusion there is no simple or straight-forward answer or quick-fix solution to this or any other problem of this scale. The only real way to solve this problem and problems like this is to have a combination of several different strategies and procedures which together can help to reduce and where possible solve the problem.

References:

Defra.2008. Municipal Waste Management Statistics (Municipal Waste Statisitics 2008/09) [Online] (Updated: 10th November 2009)
Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats/bulletin09.htm [Accessed 13th December 2009]

Worldometers.2009. Worldometers world statistics updated in realtime [Online] (Updated:14th December 2009)
Available at: http://www.worldometers.info/ [Accessed 14th December 2009]

The Energy Retail Association(ERA).2007.Smart Meters[Online] (Updated:16th December 2009)
Available at: http://www.energy-retail.org.uk/smartmeters.html
[Accessed 16th December 2009]

BBC News. Year not available. UK energy smart meters roll-out is outlined[Online](Updated: 14:53 GMT, Wednesday 2nd December 2009) Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8389880.stm [Accessed 16th December 2009]

Images from:

Boston Herald.2009.Smart money is on energy[Online](Updated:16th December 2009)Available at: http://multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/3cd0d579bb_meter_021.jpg [Accessed 16th December 2009]

Larry Bodine Marketing. Year Not available.[Online](Updated:16th December 2009) Available from: http://blog.larrybodine.com/uploads/image/merry_christmas-1.jpg
[Accessed 16th December 2009]

To believe? or not to believe?, that is the question.

Looking at the two images of the front pages of both 'The Sun' newspaper and 'The Daily Telegraph' newspaper there is a clear difference between the types of newspaper they are. Even though 'The Sun' is a tabloid and 'The Daily Telegraph is a broadsheet newspaper it is very visible from look at just the front pages of each newspaper to get a impression and idea of the content and layout of these newspapers. Put simply depending on what is on the front cover of the newspaper can determine whether a person purchases this paper or another. Some people would for example look at the front page of 'The Daily Telegragh' and decide they do not want to read it because it has a lot of words. This may not be such a bad thing because having a lot of words could just mean that the paper is written in more detail. Whereas 'The Sun' tends to have a huge picture on the front cover because some people think that a picture is worth a thousand words. 'The Sun' does tend to have the front cover featuring a story which is very highly covered in other forms of media, e.g. radio and television.
















Here is a list of the top six newspapers in the United Kingdom in January 2009 (Audit Bureau of Circulations 2009):

1. The Sun 3, 146,000

2. The Daily mail 2,200,398

3. The Daily Mirror 1,366,891

4. The Daily Telegraph 783,210

5. The Daily Star 768,534

6. The Daily Mirror 736,340

(http://learningforsustainabledevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/11/blogprompt-number-four.html) (ENV 1017)

After looking at the information shown above about the top six best selling newspapers, with the only broadsheet being the forth best-selling newspaper, it concludes that a lot of people are more favourable to choose a tabloid newspaper over a broadsheet. the broadsheet newspapers contains a larger variety of more important serious issues, although it can often manipulate the information to make it more appealing to the reader. In comparision the tabloid newspapers, 'The Sun' in particular tends to include more articles and stories about celebrities, showbiz, gossip and few news articles.

According to: http://www.uksuperweb.co.uk/newspapers.html ...

"The Daily Telegraph - online newspaper features the latest news stories from the UK and around the world. Featured areas include UK arts news, motoring news and car test drives, job news online, money experts with advice on personal finance and the latest stock market news, daily sports news from the UK and abroad including horse racing as well as sections for British experts." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

"The Sun - newspaper Online is Britain's best-selling daily tabloid for news, sport and showbiz exclusives. Fantastic on sport always our fave for the footy and horse racing. The UK's biggest selling daily newspaper." http://www.thesun.co.uk/

In my opinion I think that the media, including the newspapers should cover stories related to serious issues because they have the ability to inform a large number of members of the public about serious issues. If they do not it may mean that the issue is not reported or covered for some time. However if the media choose to cover serious issues the public may then have sufficient time to take action if necessary. For example, if there was a political disagreement or something happened which could have a big impact on lots of people's everyday lives, the media has almost a responsiblity to inform the public about these issues.

Controversially the newspapers could technically withhold certain information about big events or focus on other pieces of information to give an impression to the reader of the situation. The media could also put a bias 'slant' or 'spin' the story to make it more appealing towards the reader in order to encourage more members of the public to purchase their newspapers.

In my opinion I think that the tabloid media and 'low budget entertainment' do have too much power and influence in this country. I think this because of the top six best-selling newspapers in the U.K the only broadsheet was the forth best-selling and this means that the top three best-selling newspapers are tabloids which means the tabloid media have a big impact upon what people read each day. It works out that just over 100,000 copies of 'The Sun' newspaper are sold everyday, this means that only a very small percentage of the population (<1%)>

Here is a list of the top ten most watched television programmes and times these were shown over the weekend of the 8th of November 2009 (Channel ITV 1):

1. The X-factor Results (Sundays 19:59)

2. The X-factor (Saturday 20:00)

3.Coronation Street (Monday 19:32)

4. Coronation Street (Monday 20:29)

5. Doc Martin (Sunday 21:02)

6. Coronation Street (Friday 20:29)

7. Coronation Street (Friday 19:32)

8. Coronation Street (Thursday 20:31)

9. Emmerdale (Monday 19:00)

10. Emmerdale (Thrusday 20.00)

This shows that all of these programmes are on during 'Prime time' i.e. the time when the most people are watching television during the day. It means that these programmes are able to show and do show stories which reflect recent events. However they can also give impressions to people and get people thinking about different scenarios which have the potential to happen in their everyday lives. This can have both a positive and negative impact upon the viewer. The positive impact would be that the scenario is one of joy and happiness and could make the viewer experience these emotions as they watch the programme. The negative impact would be a scenario in which something bad happens and could cause the viewer to experience sadness, anxiety, or bring back feelings of trauma if a similar thing has happened to them in the past as they relate to what they are seeing.

Television has seen a big rise in reality television as it has been more and more accepted by the public. Now it features as the most watched television show in the form of 'X-factor Results' on Sundays and 'X-factor' on Saturdays. This could be seen as a bad thing because as it is reality television, it is happening and the viewer may become really involved and engaged with the programme. Not only could this become a distraction to their everyday routine but it could also cause them to experience distress and perhaps even anger if they have voted for one of the cast members and that person is cast-off the show.

Overall the rise of reality television and the soaps taking the 'Prime-time' slot on the television has enabled the programmes to have a large influence on the viewer. This is because they can enforce their own opinions upon the viewer through the means of the programme.

Images from:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/images/2007/09/25/sun.jpg

http://www.gordonclown.com/img/20070224/telegraph-23feb07.jpg

References:

http://learningforsustainabledevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/11/blogprompt-number-four.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/

http://www.uksuperweb.co.uk/newspapers.html

Fairness, Equality and becoming a more Informed and Empowered Citizen

I think that it is very fairly important for me as a citizen to be 'informed' in order to make a decision and to choose what I want; what I want to do, say, hear, who I want to vote for in elections. For example if there was an election tomorrow to allow British people to vote on whether or not they think Britain should accept the European currency to replace Sterling. In order for any British citizen to vote in the election the citizen would need to be 'informed' on both the positive and negative impacts and any possible outcomes from this, if it were to happen. Therefore it is very important for a citizen to be informed because if a citizen is not informed then they may not be able to make a true or proper decision.

In my opinion I would like to think that I am reasonably informed on most things, although by far I could not say that I am totally informed on everything. I think it would be something of a challenge to be completely informed on absolutely everything.

The main ways in which I become informed about serious issues is by the media in the form of television, radio, internet and newspaper. However it is recently becoming more controversially disputed that a lot of what we hear in the media is twisted and manipulated to give us a sense of fear.

"Imagine a world where our knowledge of the world’s problems and issues are
controlled by one body. Where we only know only what this body lets us see. What
if they abused this power, withheld truth and manipulated to sway public
opinion. Well that world is the world we live in now, and the body I am talking
about is the media."

(http://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/12699.html)

I am torn on whether we should leave complicated issues to others. For example, should we leave the scientific decisions to the scientists? Should we leave the political decisions to politicians? Should we leave the economic decisions to the accountants and economists?

For part I want to say YES, we should leave these decisions to these people because they have a lot more knowledge, training and experience in and with dealing with these matters when compared to everyday members of the public.

Although I do also think that NO! we should not leave the decisions to these people. I think this for many reasons; firstly taking into account recent event over the last few months with regard to the "Expenses scandal" concerning a lot of politicians who have put in claims for money for making changes to their second homes and purchase of a range of products to their expenses allowances. This has been a long and on-going process for the last few years; starting in January 2005 when...

....The Freedom of Information Act 2000 comes into effect. Requests for details
of MPs' expenses are filed soon afterwards by
campaigner Heather Brooke, reporter Jon Ungoed-Thomas and The Sunday
Telegraph's
Ben Leapman.

This is what has happened since the requests were made using the Freedom of Information Act 2000...

-2006: July - Parliament complies with the Information Commissioner's request to view data.

-22 January 2008 - The House of Commons is ordered by the Information Commissioner to release a detailed breakdown of expenses claimed by six MPs including Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his predecessor Tony Blair.

-13 March - Publication of the so-called ''John Lewis list'' reveals that MPs are allowed to claim up to £10,000 for a new kitchen, more than £6,000 for a bathroom and £750 for a television on "Parliamentary allowances".

-21 April - Mr Brown uses a video on YouTube to announce proposals for reform, including scrapping the second home allowance and replacing it with a flat-rate attendance fee.

-8 May - The Daily Telegraph prints the first in a series of extracts from leaked computer discs containing the Commons' authorities documentation of MPs' second home claims.

-Over the next few weeks, daily reports in the paper put the spotlight on dozens of different MPs, revealing practices such as ''flipping'' homes to maximise claims and the avoidance of capital gains tax by changing the designation of second homes.

-18 June - MPs' expenses claims are published by the House of Commons, with many details blacked out.

-1 November - Commons Leader Harriet Harman says it would not be ''fair'' to force MPs to sack their husbands and wives, following reports that Sir Christopher will recommend a ban on using taxpayers' money to employ spouses.

The back the argument further, you could also take into account about the cause of the 'RECESSION' that we are still in, and have been for over a year.

"A recession occurs when there is a fall in economic growth for two consecutive
quarters. However if growth is very low there will be increased spare capacity
and increased unemployment; people will feel there is a recession. This is
sometimes known as a growth recession". (http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/economic-growth/cause-recession2.html)

WHAT ARE YOU THOUGHTS?


References:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6499657/MPs-expenses-scandal-a-timeline.html

" An Inconvenient Truth! " Or was it?

Having watched the film I think that Al Gore, The I.P.C.C and the United Nations Panel did deserve to win the 'Noble Peace Prize' when they won it in 2007. I think this because the film they produced between them, called 'An Inconvenient Truth' was very informative. Although it was at times bias and one-sided in that it didn't seem to take the view of the "Sceptics" into consideration. Instead he chose to destroy their ideas and theories by exploding what would see to be more of the truth in the form of graphs which show various data. This was a strange way to do this, and certainly not the way i would have done it. I thought that Al Gore was very persuasive in his argument. "He wasn't forceful, in a way to say this is the truth... this is what we need to do... now what are you going to do about it??" He had a much more gentle approach and was quite diplomatic.
However, this may in some people's opinion be a little controversial to say as they may choose to disagree of have a conflicting opinion.

I feel that Al Gore made some strong points and had a very convincing argument. I feel that he was pro-Climate Change and clearly demonstrated this. I think he has had a real wake-up call and realised it is a problem, something does need to be done about it and he is now trying to do things to make a differance. As for my opinion, I feel that he did partly represent my opinion although I do not agree with everything he said. He had good sources of data and in the film it looked like he was talking about the truth for the majority, but i do think he could have at least tried to do more.

With regard to other people's opinion, i feel that he did take most opinions into account when he was making the film, however i think that was fairly vague.
I do feel that people's opinion to Climate Change could definately have been influenced from watching that film, which is partly why it was very controversial when it was first released in 2007. Climate change is definately an issue and is going to have an impact at some point through time; whether it is in our lifetime, our children's life time, our grandchildren's lifetime or whenever it happens, it will have an impact somewhere. When this happens, things will change. Although not necessarily the way they are being predicted to. Perhaps Al Gore was right and his data is correct and if it is then we have got a problem and something needs to be done. Conversely if he is not, then it may be all a big fuss over nothing. Eitherway there will always be people who will say something against what people try to do to change things. I think the film has had an influence on me and I feel like i have been partly manipulated into thinking more about Climate Change being real from watching the film. Although I am still a little unconvinced because we are not supposed to believe everything we hear.

I thought the film was very good, very informative and conveyed a lot of information and opinions, however after watching it for a while i did get a little distracted and started getting bored. This was because the film went a little off topic and began to focus on Al Gore's near Presidental election. This is not what i would have wanted to watch the film to see if i was watching it at home. I would have wanted to see and hear about how much Climate Change is going to have an impact upon our lives and what we as individuals as well as countries and globally to change or at least try to help prevent Climate Change from happening.

I thought that the film was quite effective in telling the viewer about Climate Change, although i am not sure that it could have changed the opinion of a "Sceptic" it may have only opened their eyes. Climate change is a big issue to try to explain although i think that Al Gore did well to attempt it. Overall was the film effective? I think that the film was effective because it was able to get people engaged with the topic, to think about it and if nothing-else to talk about it. Afterall it is often through talking that the best ideas are achieved.

"Climate change is one of the greatest threats for the planet" David King (2004)

The image to the left shows an image of how or rather what Planet Earth may potentially look like after Global Warming has taken hold of the little (normally) 'Blue Planet' which we call home.

So now we all need to ask ourselves, and equally importantly eachother...

... Is Global Warming an issue?
This site has news about Climate Change and attempts to dispel the anthropogenic global warming hypotesis.

If you want to put a stop to Global Warming..
This is a website where people are uniting to encourage politicians and govenment to take action to stop the effects of climate change.

For more information see the above link (stopglobalwarming.org)
To Join the 1,323,258 people already on the march click here

The image below is the spectacular “blue marble” image and is the most detailed true-color image of the entire Earth to date. Using a collection of satellite-based observations, scientists and visualizers stitched together months of observations of the land surface, oceans, sea ice, and clouds into a seamless, true-color mosaic of every square kilometer (.386 square mile) of our planet. These images are freely available to educators, scientists, museums, and the public. This record includes preview images and links to full resolution versions up to 21,600 pixels across. (see "http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=2429" for more information).This image shows a fairly accurate depiction of how Planet Earth should look, although if we continue to burn fossil fuels, and emmit unsustainable amounts of polluting gases e.g CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and Fluorocarbons into our atmosphere I don't think that our beautiful 'Blue Marble' is going to stay beautiful for much longer and may become more like the image nearer the middle of this page ('Red Earth') as a potential result of what I am going to refer to as Run-away Global Warming, which is simply when Global Warming has had such an impact upon the Earth is has passed the point of no return.

Just before you go, please take a quick look at the 2 images below, these are from ("http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/1438/earth_lights_lrg.jpg") and ("http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/mapindex/popden.jpg") the first shows the light pollution from different countries around the world . The second image shows global population density in 1994. Although there is a gap of a few years between the images being created, there is a clear connection between them. If you compare the image displaying the light pollution with the population density map there is a corrolation that where there is a higher density population there is a larger amount of light pollution.