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

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/

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