Blogprompt 10: How sustainable is my area?

To what extent does my ward/SOA resemble a "sustainable community" and to what extent i don't think it does? Give some evidence from my observations (or my memories) of this judgement.

Within my SOA (Northampton 028A), in 2007 there was an estimated 2395 residents (1208 males and 1187 females) and 1358 dwellings, with 36% of people aged between 16 and 29. With 69.8% of people's health rated as "good" (April 2001), at first glimpse this may seem like a great place to live with lots of green open spaces and little graffiti, however all is not as it seems. In our family alone, our car has been broken into twice (different car each time) and my brother mugged on his way home from work. Old washing machines and rubbish dumped in piles, hidden in plain site, with the occasional abandoned (sometimes burnt) car left unmoved. The police have done little to prevent crime from happening and seem disorganised when they visit if you phone about a crime (found out via personal experience).

But don't let a few negatives cloud your view just yet as the schools in the surrounding area are great and 58.9% of the area is green space and only 2.7% being domestic buildings. The people are friendly and willing to help and even with the high(ish) crime rate, it is still a great place to live. As the saying goes "don't knock it 'till you try it"!

As far as being sustainable, Northampton 028A is not the best example but that doesn't mean that it isn't a great place to grow up. There are some things that need improving, as like any other area but I have lived here my entire life (bar the year and a half i lived in Great Billing due to the floods) and i would not change that for anything.

All data from: www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination

Blogprompt 8: Education for Citizenship

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

If people choose not to vote for any reason, that is their business, citizens have the right to free choice when it comes to actually voting or who they vote for. If their reason for not voting is within reason (such as a disability), then in my eyes they should be allowed to freely express their view (within the boundaries of the law) afterwards. However, what annoys me the most about those who don't plan on voting or those who don't vote at all due to selfish reasons is that in the weeks/months that follow, they are the ones who complain about who was elected or the ways in which the winner works. I may be harsh to believe this but those who don't vote have no right to criticize who was elected afterwards as they had their chance to state their views via the voting booth yet they didn't take that moment to do so.

I respect that people have their own views on who should be elected, who shouldn't and the reasons why they believe that, however non-voters 9without good reason) shoudn't go around afterwards denouncing those who got in because they weren't their first choice because if they had voted, in my opinion that makes it more appropiate for them to do so as they actually had their say.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I have never been one for politics and probably never will be. I vote when i have the chance for who i believe would be the best person for the job, i try not to let my main concerns cloud my judgement when i make that dec however i prefer a more direct approach when it comes to helping my community such as volunteer work

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Constituency - Northampton South
Local MP - Brian Bingley, Conservative (UK Parliament 2010)
Local Council - Northampton Borough Council
Political Party Dominate - Labour (Sally Keeble, Northampton North)

http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/constituencies/northampton-south

Blogprompt 6 and 7: Sustainable Transport?!?

What are your views? Is there really a transport problem? Do the benefits of motorized transport outweigh the costs? Are their any minor (or perhaps major) changes you personally feel could make our present transport system more sustainable?

According to the Renewable Fuels Agency (2009), Sustainability is "the ability of a process to be continued indefinitely without damaging and/or degrading the environment in which it depends". When asked, most people say that they would rather be more sustainable or environmentally friendly but they can't get over the speed bump of convenience that cars offer. There may be other transport options that are less damaging to the environment such as biking, walking or the local bus service but many still use their cars as it is easier to do so and generally allows you to get closer to their work than a bus stop would allow without the crowding and lingering BO smells.

Car manufacturers are coming up with new models designed to be more sustainable yet still look great, however this is putting stress on the roads as they are becoming more jammed up with motorists, creating (in my opinion) a major traffic issue with few answers until people start to leave the comfort of their vehicles behind for a "better" (and generally cheaper and healthier) mode of transportation to get from A to B.

The main problem is that are cars have been designed with comfort in mind, unlike bikes and buses as well as the added benefit of not being out in the elements when walking, biking or waiting for the bus. BUT even so... do the benefits really outweigh the costs?

What are the costs of using cars rather than bikes or walking? Well... the most obvious (yet still important) cost is the one that is pumped out of the exhaust pipe on the back. The issue of global warming had made a triumphant return for this blog! This recurring issue has been debated for years and cars (but vehicles in general) are one of the main causes of this additional heating of the planet. What about the economic disadvantages to this method of travel? With petrol prices going up, it is becoming more expensive to pay to use your car. Biking only costs the bike itself plus additional things like helmet and lights and you quickly get your money back plus the benefit of no emissions and exercise. Walking has no cost but has the downside of taking much longer (in general). Busing has the benefit of cheaper travel than car, less environmental damage as more people can use 1 bus than 1 car however there is the disbenefit of bus stop queues and crowding.

Sustainable transport may seem as a brilliant concept however that is all it is, a concept. Transportation, in my view, will never be sustainable or environmentally friendly unless the population is willing to fore-go there cars for other vehicles (i.e. buses) or through their own body movement (i.e. walking, biking). Only if this occurs, can sustainable transport be a reality rather than a dreamed concept.


Picture from: http://www.griffith.edu.au/ofm/sustainability/content_definition.html

Renewable Fuels Agency, 2009. What is sustainability? [online] Available at: http://www.renewablefuelsagency.gov.uk/aboutthertfo/carbonandsustainabilityreporting/whatissustainability
[Accessed: 25 March 2010]

Blogprompt 5: Cultural festivities v Sustainablity

Christmas is coming!
Cultural festivals, such as Christmas, are undoubtedly enjoyable and an important time for families and friends to relax together. Many have important religious significance. On the other hand, such events are often defined by excess and waste...lights, fireworks, over-packaging, excessive spending, over-eating and embarrassing self indulgence.


What do you think? Is Christmas sustainable? How would it all work in it a changed world?
Or should all the 'do-gooders' leave our festivals alone!!!!

Christmas is supposed to be a time for cheer, a time to spend with friends and family but can it still be so in a sustainable future? Christmas can be sustainable but will the population be able to fore-go their love for shop brought presents and excessive house decorations? It's a difficult question to answer because everyone is entitled to their own views, some can see the benefits of being sustainable but can't let go of their lifestyle now to see it through.

Throughout the holidays, their have been campaigns to encourage people to act more sustainable, buying recycled wrapping paper and presents, getting rid of unwanted lights or using real trees that come from a sustainable source. This is all well and I'm sure there are many who have tried to help their environment through this cause but many do not want to give up their old decorations (which many are emotionally attached to) for "second hand ones" for a future that is balancing on a knife's edge and is constantly changing.

However, many can argue that children recognize Christmas as a time for presents rather than their religious or cultural background. By getting children to make cards and/or presents for their family rather than purchase them from a local store makes the gift more personal, brings them closer to their family and teaches them about recycling and sustainability and that it's all about the giving, not just the receiving (as well as save money).

Many people recycle their waste during the year, however when it comes to the cultural festivities, no short cuts are taken. With all the deals on, we overspend yet still think we don't have enough food. This year alone we have had to throw away an estimated 3 million tonnes of waste, that's a tenth of the annual total just for one day of festivities.

No matter how hard we try, it will be difficult to mix a our love for Christmas and a sustainable future, many will not want to give up their current festivities for another, no matter how environmentally friendly it seems.

Referencing

Eartheasy, 2009. How to Have a Green Christmas [online] Available at: http://www.eartheasy.com/give_sustainchristmas.htm (Accessed 2nd January 2010)

Blogprompt 4: Media

To what extent do best selling UK newspapers cover stories related to "serious" issues? To what extent would you think it is their role to do so? In your opinion does the tabloid media and "low budget entertainment" (reality shows, soaps) have too much power and influence in this country?


When overhearing a conversation between friends, you don't hear them discussing any "serious" issues like Climate Change, you hear snippets of what happened in Eastenders or Coronation Street. When there's a power cut, the first thing on most of the population's mind is that they'll miss their favourite programme not on whether the hospital's have power or whether the street and traffic lights are out.

As I personally don't watch any reality shows, soaps or read the newspaper, I can only speak/write about other people's experiences rather than through my own experiences. Like I said/wrote in my previous blog, I believe that as citizens we have the right to know what is happening, even if we don't understand it all. The media writes about "serious" issues to a certain extent, but only if it they believe that the majority of the population want to hear about it. Even then, it is sometimes twisted to make it more interesting, they will leave important facts out or will only show one side/view of the story.

The problem with the media is that if they mention one thing the wrong way or take it too far, it can start a panic. For example, mass hysteria about the Swine Flu was provoked by the Media who just saw it as a good story. On a yearly basis, thousands of people can get the "regular" flu or a flu mutation (which aren't that different to Swine Flu) in just one country, however a few secluded cases of Swine Flu in varying countries and suddenly we're in an epidemic!

The media in my opinion has too much power, effecting our lives in such a way that we sometimes don't even notice. We have become dependant on reading our weekly newspaper, magazine or watching our favourite soap and go into a panic when we miss it for any reason. Our lives shouldn't be ruled by what we read or watch as it has most likely been manipulated to put it into a better light, make it seem more interesting and/or shows only a specific side to a story. Some soaps show serious issues but in a more comical or dramatic way, to make it more user friendly but shouldn't we also hear/see the real story too?

References
Image from: http://www.art.co.uk/products/p14798656-sa-i3067315/posters.htm

Blogprompt 3: Empowered Citizenship

To what extent do you think that it is your duty as a citizen to be 'informed'? Are you informed? How do you get to be informed about serious issues? To what extent do you think that you should leave the complicated decisions up to others?

"It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens" ~ Baha'u'llah

We are all citizens of our country and our world so we should all be informed of any news that may have an effect upon our lives and well being but this is not done often enough. When we do receive it, most of the time, it is heard through the media (newspapers or TV generally), however it's been twisted to make it more interesting, the facts have been blown out of proportion and they generally show the writer's point of view, sometimes practically tell us what to believe. Scientists and politicians may seem very professional but many don't take into account all of the sides of any situation, sticking to their views and the views of their superiors because their the ones who at the end of the day, give them their wage.

To some extent, I can see why it is better to leave any complicated or serious issues up the experts in that field, however we should still be told about it and given our chance to have a say instead of being cut out completely and allowing the "experts" to make the decisions for us. It seems unfair that they should have all the say in topics that effects magnitudes of people just because of their profession and position in society. Just because they have a high paying job doesn't mean that they're good at it and are always right, everyone makes mistakes but theirs could have catastrophic effects. When something goes wrong, the scientists and politicians would rather blame someone else rather than admit to it.

Being a citizen is like working in a team, you need a mixture of people with different skills, ideas and views to get the best result because if its combination of these attributes and opinion. By allowing just the scientists and politicians to make our decision, any useful ideas or views that we "ordinary" citizens have are ignored and the final decision may not be the best for the entire community/country/world as a whole.

Being a citizen means that we have the right to know what is going on and to be informed about any changes that are being made that could effect our lives. We should be able to have our say in any important decisions, not influenced by propaganda in the media or the high-waged people in society because at the end of the day, we are all citizens and each of us are as important as everyone else because we all share this one world. Any decisions made should be made by the whole community and not only a privileged few.


References
Quote from: http://www.quotegarden.com/patriotism.html

Blogprompt 2: "An Inconvenient Truth"

Al Gore (and the IPCC) won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 largely for the production of the film 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The committee cited "their efforts to build up and disseminate (spread) knowledge about man-made climate change". To what extent do you think this was deserved? Having watched this film in class did you feel that your opinion (or perhaps the opinion of others) to the issue of climate change could be positively influenced? What did you think of this film? Was it effective?

Having watched the film, I believe that many people's (including my own) opinion of climate changed will have been influenced. At first, I thought that he was joking around about the rate at which ice caps are melting and how the CO2 emissions will increase so dramatically because the numbers seemed so unreal. Everyone knew that climate change was a problem, we just didn't know that it was so big. Even the skeptics will have a hard time finding something that suggests hat we (humankind) don't play any role in what is happening. I think that the movie will have spurred people into trying to think more sustainably even if their overall effect on the world's problem is miniscule.

The Nobel Peace Prize was deserved by both Al Gore and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) as they have shown Climate Change for the dangerous future that it will be unless something drastic is done about it now, even then the temperature will still rise but not as drastically. Many would believe that the IPCC deserved the Prize but not Al Gore as he didn't "really do anything", however I believe if anyone else had stood up on that stage and delivered a speech/presentation on climate change, they would be ignored because all of their ideas and data would have been heard before. However, Al Gore's data was unseen and his images showed the effect we are having right now compared to our past as well as some images that showed our most likely future and because of his political past, his theories were not just ignored, especially since he was backed by the IPCC.

"An Inconvenient Truth" was displayed in an unusual manner (based around a powerpoint), however this made it stand out more than the average documentary and Al Gore presented it in a fun way, full of small jokes with lots of emotive images and thought-sturring quotes. Overall it was a very effective way of presenting the findings in a way that made them stand out rather than in a long-winded speech.

The SKEPTICS VIEW in media: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm

IPCC Website: http://www.ipcc.ch/