Well... my local SOA or Super (duper) Output Area is known as Redditch 005A apparently [1]. My little area is almost entirely residential, with a very small office area included. There is a nature reserve within our community which is incredibly named the "natural nature reserve". My community also lies close to a bypass known as the Coventry Highway which is closely linked to the M42 by the A435 and is on the sub-urban fringe of my town, right on the edge (Some pictures within the residential area of my community [2] [3].
According to the http://www.Communities.gov.uk under "Definition of a 'Sustainable Community'" they describe it as being a combination of different factors that together, make a community that is good to live in for themselves and for others in the future [4]. They have a list of different elements that can make a sustainable community and further lists that can also define the type of community, so I'll just have to describe my area and see which one (if any) it fits into.
570 houses with 559 of those semi or completely dethatched [5]. According to Communities and Local Government (CLG) a 'well designed and built community' has a wide range of houses... so I guess it’s not that one then... Ok how about religion, 80.42% Christian, and 12.88% with no religion, the 'Active, inclusive and safe' community has a populous that has an engagement and respect with people from other beliefs. So there is no real chance to do that within my community, they would have to go elsewhere for that experience, so not that one either... I'm probably trying to tackle this the wrong way, I know there is a bypass close by with links to the M42, so that fills the category for well connected slightly, I know through personal experience that there aren’t any cycle paths though (sorry Gregg), so I suppose it doesn’t fill all of that criteria.
My area might not be the most 'sustainable' in its social aspect with little cultural diversity, and lack of communicating on a regular basis. It's slightly poor in terms of environment because again, personal experience reminds me that the bus routes are shocking at best and the only links are roads which isn’t the most sustainable long term use of travel. The economic side is the only real factor that is ok for my community with employment above the regional and national standards [6] and the majority of housing higher quality semi/detached houses. But the thought that keeps passing through my mind is that I think, overall, my area functions very well as a community because when problems have risen such as the lack of public transport which actually happened suddenly when the bus routes were completely changed, my community adapted and started using more cars and walked more.
My community I think should come under a new heading of 'adaptive community'. To be sustainable the community need to be a place where "people want to live and work, now and in the future" as said by the CLG themselves. My community has always been like that but has constantly changed since it was built. I would say it’s more of a 'well connected' community according to the CLG but who says that what they say is exactly right about what a community should be like, who says what I think a community could be, being 'adaptive', is wrong or right?
1) My Local SOA: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadAreaSearch.do?a=3&r=1&i=1001&m=0&s=1268760784934&enc=1&areaSearchText=B98+0QT&area
SearchType=141&extendedList=false&searchAreas=
2) Picture within Kingscote Close: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/29156
3) Picture beside the local Londis Shop in Furze Lane: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/29157
4) Communities and Local Government: http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/general-content/communities/whatis/
Categories
5) Housing: Accommodation Type - Household Spaces (UV56)
6) Work: Key Figures for Work Deprivation
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
BP 8 - I've never liked mainstream politics... ever...
So you want to know my home's politics? OK no worries there,
Constituency: Redditch [1]
Local MP: Jacqui Smith, Labour (woop)
Local Council: Redditch Borough Council [2]
Local Council dominated mostly by: Conservatives (...) [3]
To answer the first question about my attitude to those whom don't vote is well... mixed. I think you should vote depending on how you have been influenced by those who are already in "power" (be it positively or negatively ) and the alternatives that are available to you by other parties that are most likely to be seen through... although that isn’t very often that a lot of promises ever go through [4]. This is so that those already with control can be almost made accountable in a way for their actions in charge and should (I say should) influence more into voting for them if they did well for the area, or lose votes respectably if their actions were poor. With the alternatives, I think it should only be right that they be judged on what they are willing to carry through whilst taking into account the implications of carrying out a particular 'promise' over others.
The people who vote that way are fine in my books, it’s just the others... those who attempt to use the vote for other means or only vote for the party focusing the most on a single matter rather than thinking about the bigger picture and otherwise wouldn't vote. One such problem was when BNP managed 2 seats in the EU and the vote for BNP both through protest and because their policies on immigration and related issues were shared by a large number of people but there were no real policies for the economy or other problems the UK is facing. If they don't vote then they don't have a say but if they don't really 'vote' by not voting properly then its counter-productive and could cause more problems than if they didn't vote at all by changing who gets power. It is Deffinatly safer not to vote than to throw it away and vote for anyone or a party you only share a few interests in but not others.
My main concerns would be the extent that the party would share the majority of the countries views on matters and would address problems as experts but with the viewpoint of the people. If they do that, then I have no problems really, even if that view point would not match my own it would match the majority and help more people if corrected for them. It's only fair and it’s only right that such actions would be taken by those in power. I have a few more petty concerns like anything that could negatively effect me as a student, it could potentially have large repercussions further down the line but otherwise I would just have to say it would be for the best... and moan to others around me... maybe start an independent party.
For fun :) http://adamsmith.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/cartoon290708_41106a.jpg
1) General election results 2005/2001/1997 for Redditch: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/constituency/1240/redditch
2) Redditch Borough Council main internet page: http://redditch.whub.org.uk/cms/default.aspx
3) Interactive map of the local election results by the guardian, see Worcestershire: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/local-election-results-map-2009
4) False promises by parties : http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-richards/steve-richards-the-false-promise-of-romantic-ideas-1902771.html
Constituency: Redditch [1]
Local MP: Jacqui Smith, Labour (woop)
Local Council: Redditch Borough Council [2]
Local Council dominated mostly by: Conservatives (...) [3]
To answer the first question about my attitude to those whom don't vote is well... mixed. I think you should vote depending on how you have been influenced by those who are already in "power" (be it positively or negatively ) and the alternatives that are available to you by other parties that are most likely to be seen through... although that isn’t very often that a lot of promises ever go through [4]. This is so that those already with control can be almost made accountable in a way for their actions in charge and should (I say should) influence more into voting for them if they did well for the area, or lose votes respectably if their actions were poor. With the alternatives, I think it should only be right that they be judged on what they are willing to carry through whilst taking into account the implications of carrying out a particular 'promise' over others.
The people who vote that way are fine in my books, it’s just the others... those who attempt to use the vote for other means or only vote for the party focusing the most on a single matter rather than thinking about the bigger picture and otherwise wouldn't vote. One such problem was when BNP managed 2 seats in the EU and the vote for BNP both through protest and because their policies on immigration and related issues were shared by a large number of people but there were no real policies for the economy or other problems the UK is facing. If they don't vote then they don't have a say but if they don't really 'vote' by not voting properly then its counter-productive and could cause more problems than if they didn't vote at all by changing who gets power. It is Deffinatly safer not to vote than to throw it away and vote for anyone or a party you only share a few interests in but not others.
My main concerns would be the extent that the party would share the majority of the countries views on matters and would address problems as experts but with the viewpoint of the people. If they do that, then I have no problems really, even if that view point would not match my own it would match the majority and help more people if corrected for them. It's only fair and it’s only right that such actions would be taken by those in power. I have a few more petty concerns like anything that could negatively effect me as a student, it could potentially have large repercussions further down the line but otherwise I would just have to say it would be for the best... and moan to others around me... maybe start an independent party.
For fun :) http://adamsmith.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/cartoon290708_41106a.jpg
1) General election results 2005/2001/1997 for Redditch: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/constituency/1240/redditch
2) Redditch Borough Council main internet page: http://redditch.whub.org.uk/cms/default.aspx
3) Interactive map of the local election results by the guardian, see Worcestershire: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/local-election-results-map-2009
4) False promises by parties : http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-richards/steve-richards-the-false-promise-of-romantic-ideas-1902771.html
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
BP 6 and 7 - Transport ...
Transport?! It's dire, let’s move on, please?
From personal experience it seems to me that if you mention transport to people, they instantly moan about everything that makes it hell or the immensely long journeys they have to take commuting to and from their work or place of study. Even I tend to try to avoid it sometimes because it’s such a complicated issue. But from where I'm standing, it tends to get people worked up easily about their own issues regarding transport.
My own views on transport vary massively depending on what about transport you want to ask about. I hate public transport but I know it’s the way we will have to go as a functioning economy as it takes us away from high car dependency and all of its problems, health being one of them [1]... Transport is a problem we need to address otherwise it will get out of hand and could come at a time when we might need to focus on other matters... I also think that public transport should be for work and commuting rather than the exceptional journey to transport the majority rather than the minority.
There is Deffinatly a problem with the transport system at the moment. It all lies around the problem of car dependency which most people know about. Lots of data being published at the moment are showing a continual trend of increasing car usage even though it contributes to some of the biggest problems associated with transport [3]. People say they will use public transport if the quality is better, but to improve the services investment and demand has to be high enough, which isn't the case because of the large amount of car usage [4]
I think they do because the environmental and social downsides [5] are relatively small (climate change not included) compared to the dependency of the economy on fast and convenient travel which motorized transport provides. Thinking about climate change then there are far too many variables and unknown answers about the impact of reducing motorized vehicle usage directly to climate change and would need to consider the ever changing results of that phenomena.
However after saying all that, that question should never be spoken again! Ever! It allows people to say yes giving them an escape point so no progress is made over the issue, once they have already decided that the benefits outweigh costs. What we should be saying is do the benefits of other modes of transport outweigh their respective costs greater than that of motorized transport? That way if people say no then at least we know there is no alternative. However if they say yes though then we can look at the alternatives and know more can be done.
Get rid of "car dependency" and increase massively public transport and more environmental ways of transporting people and goods. Easier said than done though right? In an ideal world I’d say do it and they all would, but people have different expectations of public transport, different needs surrounding transport and different ways of adjusting to it all. I think it’s best to continue with micro scale plans where businesses sort out their employees and the councils sort out the bigger plans with roads and actually setting up the transport. Do it slow enough so if something bad does happen then it can quickly undo itself and then try again, otherwise people may wish they hadn't put you in charge.
1) BBC Online news page on Exhaust Emissions: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/336738.stm
2) BBC Search list for problems with Oil dependency: http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?scope=all&tab=all&q=oil+dependency+problem
3) DfT – Roads, vehicles and congestion: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/trends/current/section1rvc.pdf
4) Environment City Leicester : http://www.environmentcity.org.uk/article.asp?
5) Cities for Children – The Effects of Car Usage on Their Lives: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/1348/
From personal experience it seems to me that if you mention transport to people, they instantly moan about everything that makes it hell or the immensely long journeys they have to take commuting to and from their work or place of study. Even I tend to try to avoid it sometimes because it’s such a complicated issue. But from where I'm standing, it tends to get people worked up easily about their own issues regarding transport.
My own views on transport vary massively depending on what about transport you want to ask about. I hate public transport but I know it’s the way we will have to go as a functioning economy as it takes us away from high car dependency and all of its problems, health being one of them [1]... Transport is a problem we need to address otherwise it will get out of hand and could come at a time when we might need to focus on other matters... I also think that public transport should be for work and commuting rather than the exceptional journey to transport the majority rather than the minority.
There is Deffinatly a problem with the transport system at the moment. It all lies around the problem of car dependency which most people know about. Lots of data being published at the moment are showing a continual trend of increasing car usage even though it contributes to some of the biggest problems associated with transport [3]. People say they will use public transport if the quality is better, but to improve the services investment and demand has to be high enough, which isn't the case because of the large amount of car usage [4]
I think they do because the environmental and social downsides [5] are relatively small (climate change not included) compared to the dependency of the economy on fast and convenient travel which motorized transport provides. Thinking about climate change then there are far too many variables and unknown answers about the impact of reducing motorized vehicle usage directly to climate change and would need to consider the ever changing results of that phenomena.
However after saying all that, that question should never be spoken again! Ever! It allows people to say yes giving them an escape point so no progress is made over the issue, once they have already decided that the benefits outweigh costs. What we should be saying is do the benefits of other modes of transport outweigh their respective costs greater than that of motorized transport? That way if people say no then at least we know there is no alternative. However if they say yes though then we can look at the alternatives and know more can be done.
Get rid of "car dependency" and increase massively public transport and more environmental ways of transporting people and goods. Easier said than done though right? In an ideal world I’d say do it and they all would, but people have different expectations of public transport, different needs surrounding transport and different ways of adjusting to it all. I think it’s best to continue with micro scale plans where businesses sort out their employees and the councils sort out the bigger plans with roads and actually setting up the transport. Do it slow enough so if something bad does happen then it can quickly undo itself and then try again, otherwise people may wish they hadn't put you in charge.
1) BBC Online news page on Exhaust Emissions: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/336738.stm
2) BBC Search list for problems with Oil dependency: http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?scope=all&tab=all&q=oil+dependency+problem
3) DfT – Roads, vehicles and congestion: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/trends/current/section1rvc.pdf
4) Environment City Leicester : http://www.environmentcity.org.uk/article.asp?
5) Cities for Children – The Effects of Car Usage on Their Lives: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/1348/
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
What do I think? Is Christmas Sustainable? How would it all work in a changed world?
I can see where you’re coming from, apparently 83 square km of wrapping paper and 125,000 tonnes of plastic packaging were binned and ended up in landfills [1]. I'm sure that’s not very healthy for an economy trying to be sustainable, but hey it’s Christmas! Why would people think of boring things such as sustainability right? Well I think they should anyway... just keep it in the back of their head to recycle what can be recycled [2], otherwise it’s like being on a diet and then pigging out at the end of it, doesn't really work. But it is the single day of the year for some religious groups where they do this (Christians etc.), it’s not as though they do it all year round. Even then, they don’t throw everything away; they will recycle paper and cans from parties just like anyone else would, 20%-30% more glass and cans are collected each year over the Christmas period [3].
I think at the moment, if we are thinking about resources and recycling then... probably yes, I do think it’s sustainable. I think it is because our retailers are set up ready for Christmas [4], and along with the predictability of high consumption it means a sudden surge in resources usage is prepared for. The resources are made ready, early enough and made available in high enough quantities for this time of the year. Recycling plants and landfills sites know about the increase in waste that they should expect this along with the increasing awareness about why we should recycle more means that the stresses on our resources will decrease. More and more people are aware of 'tips' to help them out around Christmas to reduce the resources they use so it is easier to be sustainable [5].
Depends on what you mean by a changed world. If you mean a world where everyone is thinking extremely strongly about sustainability and wouldn't buy a sheet of paper without
thinking about sustainability, then don't expect rapping of any kind to take place. Most people would probably just buy bags or hand over gifts without packaging to reduce the waste we use. It happens already, with wine bags so it would just involve all sorts of other gifts as well, since the bag can be reused. I don't think the retailers would be to happy in this world because they would only be selling products that were sustainably made and would be sustainable in the future. Be boring though, I like light and the fact that we can be over excessive for one part of the year over all others, makes it seem more special and more positive.
... Yeh, damn the do-gooders! I want my lights :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmgf60CI_ks <- Really recommend the link 1) Compilation of Waste Statistics from various sources: http://www.reducetheuse.co.uk/Page/Waste/Wastefacts.htm
2) Bradford Council Environment Page: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/the_environment/waste_management_street_scene/waste/recycling/christmas/
3) Official Waste Statistics: http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/ChristmasRecycling.htm
4) Retailers Advice about Christmas: http://www.utalkmarketing.com/Pages/Article.aspx?ArticleID=16056&Title=How_retailers_should_prepare_their_e-commerce_platform_for_Christmas
5) How to have a Green Christmas: http://www.eartheasy.com/give_sustainchristmas.htm
I think at the moment, if we are thinking about resources and recycling then... probably yes, I do think it’s sustainable. I think it is because our retailers are set up ready for Christmas [4], and along with the predictability of high consumption it means a sudden surge in resources usage is prepared for. The resources are made ready, early enough and made available in high enough quantities for this time of the year. Recycling plants and landfills sites know about the increase in waste that they should expect this along with the increasing awareness about why we should recycle more means that the stresses on our resources will decrease. More and more people are aware of 'tips' to help them out around Christmas to reduce the resources they use so it is easier to be sustainable [5].
Depends on what you mean by a changed world. If you mean a world where everyone is thinking extremely strongly about sustainability and wouldn't buy a sheet of paper without
thinking about sustainability, then don't expect rapping of any kind to take place. Most people would probably just buy bags or hand over gifts without packaging to reduce the waste we use. It happens already, with wine bags so it would just involve all sorts of other gifts as well, since the bag can be reused. I don't think the retailers would be to happy in this world because they would only be selling products that were sustainably made and would be sustainable in the future. Be boring though, I like light and the fact that we can be over excessive for one part of the year over all others, makes it seem more special and more positive.... Yeh, damn the do-gooders! I want my lights :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmgf60CI_ks <- Really recommend the link 1) Compilation of Waste Statistics from various sources: http://www.reducetheuse.co.uk/Page/Waste/Wastefacts.htm
2) Bradford Council Environment Page: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/the_environment/waste_management_street_scene/waste/recycling/christmas/
3) Official Waste Statistics: http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/ChristmasRecycling.htm
4) Retailers Advice about Christmas: http://www.utalkmarketing.com/Pages/Article.aspx?ArticleID=16056&Title=How_retailers_should_prepare_their_e-commerce_platform_for_Christmas
5) How to have a Green Christmas: http://www.eartheasy.com/give_sustainchristmas.htm
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
Do the best selling newspapers cover serious issues? Is it their role to do so? do they and low budget TV have to much influence and power?
Well looking at the front pages it’s pretty mixed I feel. I thought I would look at their front pages because I felt that the front page would give a good idea as to what sort of 'stories' they are most likely to write about (human interest or current affairs) [1]. 3 of the 6 out of the list you gave us (#2, #3, #4) had at least one current affairs story but only the Telegraph was dominated by current affairs, the other 5 papers for that matter all had something... that’s best described as being not very serious (Daily Star home page for example [2]). The reason is down to target audience, tabloids target audience tends to be younger adults who are more interested in human interest stories (like celebrities etc.) and so they won’t show serious issues and lose their readers, it just happens that out of the best selling newspapers, 5 of them are tabloids.
As a whole, it is Deffinatly the role of the newspapers for providing us with news about serious issues because they are our first source of information next to the internet, and even on the internet, the newspapers website would be a major source of information! The main purpose of the newspapers is to be a source of information for the public otherwise they would not have been created. I think because of the number of newspapers though, they can report news on a wider range of topics while still serving their original purpose, so to answer the question I think they have a major role, but are large enough as a media, to explore other news types without reducing the amount of serious issues that come up in the newspapers
I think that other people think that the tabloid media and 'low budget entertainment' have too much influence but in reality, they don’t. I can't say for everyone in the UK who watches the programs that made it on the top 10 list, but I don't think they take them very seriously when it comes to current affairs, or of news of any kind for that matter. Their large success only means that people like watching them doesn’t mean they watch them to be educated on current matters, it’s purely for entertainment and that’s all they use it for. The tabloids have slightly more say on the matter though. Because they are our source of information then people are willing to accept what they show and their increasing success over broadsheets and other current affairs papers shows that they have a large audience to influence. The tabloids probably do have too much influence over people because they do talk about politics in a very biased way which can sway people’s minds about people before they know both sides of the argument. So in short, TV programs like low budget entertainment will have next to no effect on people but tabloids are a whole different issue and their ever increasing success means their audience and therefore their influence is growing.
1) Sky News Front Page Picture Gallery: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Newspaper-Front-Pages-On-Tuesday-December-8-2009/Media-Gallery/200912115495504?lpos=UK_News_News_in_Picture_UK_News_Region_0&lid=GALLERY_15495504_Newspaper_Front_Pages_On_Tuesday%2C_December_8%2C_2009_
2) Daily Star Home Page: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/home/
As a whole, it is Deffinatly the role of the newspapers for providing us with news about serious issues because they are our first source of information next to the internet, and even on the internet, the newspapers website would be a major source of information! The main purpose of the newspapers is to be a source of information for the public otherwise they would not have been created. I think because of the number of newspapers though, they can report news on a wider range of topics while still serving their original purpose, so to answer the question I think they have a major role, but are large enough as a media, to explore other news types without reducing the amount of serious issues that come up in the newspapers
I think that other people think that the tabloid media and 'low budget entertainment' have too much influence but in reality, they don’t. I can't say for everyone in the UK who watches the programs that made it on the top 10 list, but I don't think they take them very seriously when it comes to current affairs, or of news of any kind for that matter. Their large success only means that people like watching them doesn’t mean they watch them to be educated on current matters, it’s purely for entertainment and that’s all they use it for. The tabloids have slightly more say on the matter though. Because they are our source of information then people are willing to accept what they show and their increasing success over broadsheets and other current affairs papers shows that they have a large audience to influence. The tabloids probably do have too much influence over people because they do talk about politics in a very biased way which can sway people’s minds about people before they know both sides of the argument. So in short, TV programs like low budget entertainment will have next to no effect on people but tabloids are a whole different issue and their ever increasing success means their audience and therefore their influence is growing.
1) Sky News Front Page Picture Gallery: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Newspaper-Front-Pages-On-Tuesday-December-8-2009/Media-Gallery/200912115495504?lpos=UK_News_News_in_Picture_UK_News_Region_0&lid=GALLERY_15495504_Newspaper_Front_Pages_On_Tuesday%2C_December_8%2C_2009_
2) Daily Star Home Page: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/home/
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Duty to be informed? Am I informed? How do I get informed? Should some decisions be left to others?
'Work that you are obliged to perform for moral or legal reasons' [1]... Well if you take that as being the correct definition of duty then I suppose I would have to say... well... no. I don't think I have to be informed about anything really, unless it is of direct importance to me. By that I mean anything that if I didn't know then it would hinder someone else for whatever reason, not like some large decision that will affect everyone (including me) in some minor way. We don't have a law or a an old document stuck in some museum somewhere saying that we must be informed when any change occurs within society, even thinking on a level that we probably should be informed... still no, because even if we do or don't know anything about something, it doesn't change much anything because the decision has already been made. I think that when the important decisions affect us later, it is then when we are made aware of them. Once we are made aware of them in that way, then we can say we are informed. If we had to know what was going on in society then we would make the effort and find out, but because important news or anything that affects us is usually made aware to us later, there isn't any point to try and be informed, we will all find out eventually.
So am I informed? Probably less so since I've been at university (not what lecturers want to hear but...) because when I did my A levels I was in a routine. When I came home I would put the news on and absorb it like a sponge, since I moved to Northampton in halls, there is no sky TV and I only ever get the live news feed when I'm working on my laptop at my flat, which isn’t for as long, or as often as when I was at home. I’d still say I'm informed but some events in the news I end up being told about rather than seeing it when it’s just came on the TV. In terms of local news... not in the slightest. I don't read papers and that’s the only way I could learn of local news that isn't big enough to get onto TV.
As I said, the only way I get informed is through TV that I occasionally watch on the laptop, so if it doesn’t get into the laptop or through small conversation, then I will not hear of it and it will pass without me ever knowing it. But because I do watch Sky News almost daily, then I do know current affairs, but the problem is it only gives me news on a national or international scale, not local to Northampton. Any small, local news I only hear through conversations or what lecturers announce in lectures.
Now unlike the rest of the questions, this one I do have a strong view point on. I think the decision itself should be made by everyone in question (everyone it will effect); however I think that only people who understand the topic should be the people influencing others in how to think. That way, people are informed about the right factual information from the ‘experts’ and from that make better educated decisions about the matter in hand. I do think that everyone who has a say should only make the decision after knowing enough about the matter, otherwise they might be counterproductive and make a poor decision which will not be very beneficial to anyone.
1) Definition of ‘Duty’: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=duty
So am I informed? Probably less so since I've been at university (not what lecturers want to hear but...) because when I did my A levels I was in a routine. When I came home I would put the news on and absorb it like a sponge, since I moved to Northampton in halls, there is no sky TV and I only ever get the live news feed when I'm working on my laptop at my flat, which isn’t for as long, or as often as when I was at home. I’d still say I'm informed but some events in the news I end up being told about rather than seeing it when it’s just came on the TV. In terms of local news... not in the slightest. I don't read papers and that’s the only way I could learn of local news that isn't big enough to get onto TV.
As I said, the only way I get informed is through TV that I occasionally watch on the laptop, so if it doesn’t get into the laptop or through small conversation, then I will not hear of it and it will pass without me ever knowing it. But because I do watch Sky News almost daily, then I do know current affairs, but the problem is it only gives me news on a national or international scale, not local to Northampton. Any small, local news I only hear through conversations or what lecturers announce in lectures.
Now unlike the rest of the questions, this one I do have a strong view point on. I think the decision itself should be made by everyone in question (everyone it will effect); however I think that only people who understand the topic should be the people influencing others in how to think. That way, people are informed about the right factual information from the ‘experts’ and from that make better educated decisions about the matter in hand. I do think that everyone who has a say should only make the decision after knowing enough about the matter, otherwise they might be counterproductive and make a poor decision which will not be very beneficial to anyone.
1) Definition of ‘Duty’: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=duty
Thursday, 29 October 2009
To what extent do you think this was deserved? Could our opinions on climate change be positively influenced? Was the film any good? Was it effective?
I Deffinatly think that a massive wakeup call was needed at the time of the documentaries release. Even now there are far too many people who don’t think climate change is happening and some of the people are influencing others in thinking the same thing such as Sammy Wilson, an MP from Northern Ireland who thinks climate change is a hoax and has commented several times about his views in the media [1]. He was even appointed minister of the environment so he was influencing even more people! [2] The great extent that Al Gore went in making this documentary along with the IPCC was just to cement the idea firmly into people's heads that climate change is happening. I do think that the extent the documentary went was deserved because if they are trying to raise awareness (like they are still doing on their website [3]) then the more people they make realise, the better.
When asking about my opinion being influenced by the film I will have to say no. I do think climate change is happening and there are many reasons for why along with the many MANY facts and figures telling us about it [4]. The thing is, before seeing the documentary I already had a good background about climate change and its effects on the planet so it was like preaching to the converted in a way. It might have influenced some others in the room because I did hear some discussion in parts where he would unveil a shock statistic, so perhaps it has altered some other people’s views... or maybe they were discussing counter arguments to them as the discussions I witnessed were very heated.
I thought the film was pretty good to be honest. I liked how it changed from his presentation to separately filmed footage where he was discussing why it was important to him, it helped put some human interest behind the ideas. Seeing how he got more determined after what happened to his son and how he responded to losing the campaign to become president made me realise that he was greatly passionate for the future of the planet, and not just for his own interests. It’s good to know people like that are behind the idea of spreading awareness and realisation of climate change to new people.
I think its effectiveness has been very varied. I don't think that initially it reached its target of convincing people about climate change because most people who would go to the cinema and watch it would already be interested in climate change and know it’s happening (whether they think its humans or not doesn't matter). I think later when it was allowed to be used in education [5] then it finally broke through and reached an audience of school students who didn't know about climate change yet, then it served the purpose it was made for, and started to raise awareness of the issue to the unknowing students. The massive controversy that came about from it helped boost interest in the story and allowed people to become open to the idea so that scientists could introduce them properly to the idea and what can be done about it.
[1] Sammy Wilson: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/environment-minister-sammy-wilson-i-still-think-manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-14123972.html
[2] Sammy Wilson appointed Environmental Minister: http://www.doeni.gov.uk/sammy_wilson_biography.pdf
[3] The Inconvenient Truth, official website: http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
[4] The Royal Society: A guide to facts and fictions about climate change: http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
[5] BBC news: Gore’s Climate film’s nine ‘errors’: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm
When asking about my opinion being influenced by the film I will have to say no. I do think climate change is happening and there are many reasons for why along with the many MANY facts and figures telling us about it [4]. The thing is, before seeing the documentary I already had a good background about climate change and its effects on the planet so it was like preaching to the converted in a way. It might have influenced some others in the room because I did hear some discussion in parts where he would unveil a shock statistic, so perhaps it has altered some other people’s views... or maybe they were discussing counter arguments to them as the discussions I witnessed were very heated.
I thought the film was pretty good to be honest. I liked how it changed from his presentation to separately filmed footage where he was discussing why it was important to him, it helped put some human interest behind the ideas. Seeing how he got more determined after what happened to his son and how he responded to losing the campaign to become president made me realise that he was greatly passionate for the future of the planet, and not just for his own interests. It’s good to know people like that are behind the idea of spreading awareness and realisation of climate change to new people.
I think its effectiveness has been very varied. I don't think that initially it reached its target of convincing people about climate change because most people who would go to the cinema and watch it would already be interested in climate change and know it’s happening (whether they think its humans or not doesn't matter). I think later when it was allowed to be used in education [5] then it finally broke through and reached an audience of school students who didn't know about climate change yet, then it served the purpose it was made for, and started to raise awareness of the issue to the unknowing students. The massive controversy that came about from it helped boost interest in the story and allowed people to become open to the idea so that scientists could introduce them properly to the idea and what can be done about it.
[1] Sammy Wilson: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/environment-minister-sammy-wilson-i-still-think-manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-14123972.html
[2] Sammy Wilson appointed Environmental Minister: http://www.doeni.gov.uk/sammy_wilson_biography.pdf
[3] The Inconvenient Truth, official website: http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
[4] The Royal Society: A guide to facts and fictions about climate change: http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
[5] BBC news: Gore’s Climate film’s nine ‘errors’: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
