Blogprompt 5

What do you think? Is Christmas sustainable? How would it all work in a changed world?


Or should all the 'do-gooders' leave our festivals alone!!!!

Christmas is not sustainable and there is a lot of waste associated at Christmas time. There is excessive level of waste involved in packaging (mainly for the christmas presents). In Britain the amount of waste during the Christmas period account up to 400,000 double decker buses (http://files.recycleworks.co.uk/files/Festive%20Facts!.pdf). This includes 125,000 tonnes of plastic packaging getting wasted and 4,200 tonnes of aluminium foil wasted as well(http://files.recycleworks.co.uk/files/Festive%20Facts!.pdf). What is even more staggering is the fact that 90% of the packaging that is recyclable used in the Christmas period is actually thrown away without being recyclable.

Christmas is also a very greedy and self indulgent time of year. This can be seen in the fact that children receive many presents and huge quantities of food are eaten. The fact that Christmas could be associated with two sins (even though it was originally a religionist event) of gluttony (amount of food eaten) and greed (amount of presents children receive) could be seen as fairly shocking for christions. For example most children don't go to church Christmas day but open presents and will expect to receive expensive presents.

Christmas was orginally a religionist event, however most families now in the UK are not religist however still celebrate christmas due to it being in are cultural. In conclusion though Christmas is an important time of year for families across the world. This is because it's when families all get together and celebrate Christmas and is often the favourite time of year for children. These are the reasons why i would keep Christmas largely the same, with the exception being trying to strongly encourage more people to use less packaging and recycle more particularly at Christmas time.

Reference list:
http://files.recycleworks.co.uk/files/Festive%20Facts!.pdf
http://www.makingthishome.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/christmas-waste.jpg

Blogprompt 4

To what extent do the best selling UK newspapers cover stories related to serious issues? To what extent would you think that 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?

The best selling newspapers are mainly tabloids such as 'The Sun' which don't address/focus on serious issues in detail but more more sports, celebrities, reality tv shows etc. This is likely because many people reguard the serious issues as not very entertaining, don't care or simply don't understand them. As shown in the Audit Bureau of Circulations 2009 more serious newspapers such as the 'Guardian' or 'The Independent' are not included in the top six best selling newspapers. This does show that a lot of the nation arnt interested in serious issues. Also though it could be down to the fact that tabloid newspapers are much cheaper to buy for example 30p for 'The Sun' whereas is about a pound for 'The Independent' on a sunday.

It is quite worrying to see that tabloid newspapers sell the most as this results in that newspaper having a lot of power over the nation and too much influence over the nation. This also means that many people in this nation have a lack of knowledge on more importent issues such as climate change. This is likely to mean issues such as climate change get worse as people will not improve their actions to help stop climate change etc.

In my opinion though tabloid newspapers shouldn't need to cover serious issues as the person buying that newspaper is likely to not be interested in that issue, and in covering these issues this could result in that person buying a competitor newspaper. The more serious newspapers such as 'The Guardian' and 'The Independent' etc should cover all serious issues in their newspaper.

In conclusion tabloid newspapers, low budget tv (x factor etc) and celebrities do have too big an influence/power on the nation. Although i do feel that the person buying this newspaper wouldnt buy a serious newspaper even if there were no tabloid newspapers as they wouldn't find these newspapers entertaining enough. This is why i would suggest that taboild newspaper cover less serious issues with other newspapers covering the serious issues.

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 ?

I think all citizens have the duty to be informed about most of the world/country/regional issues par perhaps issues that could cause widespread panic such as potential terrist threats that could happen in the next 48 hours etc, unless it was completly neccessary for the public to be informed.

I would say generally as a citizen i am well informed through the media such as the BBC and Sky news etc as well as national newspapers such as the 'The Independent' and the 'Daily Express' etc. However many of these media outputs can be biased and may not represent both sides of the arguement properly e.g. it is often said the the daily express newspaper displays many facts and articles that are against immigration to the UK, but don't show the pros to immigration such as helping towards the economy.

Many complicated issues people don't understand and this is way i think that complicated decisions should be decided by the scientists/people working in that field/governments should be making the decision. Although citizens should have the right to voice their opinion on the issue, and if the majority of citizens are against a certain dicionsion that the government etc has made then that decionsion should be overthrown and be re-considered. Although more minor issues that effect the local community should be made by those local residents and not governments etc.

Al Gore winning the nobel peace price (Inconvenient Truth)

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?

Al Gore derserved to win the nobel peace price as his film 'An Inconvenient Truth' would have changed many peoples lifes positively. This is because by seeing this film they would have realised the repercussions there unsustainable lifes are having on this world, and by changing their lifestyle they can help save the world for future generations. The film highlighted how big an impact peoples domestic lifes, transport and western lifestyles have on climate change, and showed the stages needed to be completed to help stop climate change.

However even though its clear to see how much Al Gore cares about climate change and its repercussions, the main question raised is why didn't he try to stop climate change when he was vice presendent when he had the power to do so. Although in my opinion i still feel he derserves the nobel peace price due to how positively his film would have changed the world.

This film had a positive influence on me when i watched it a couple of years ago as i then realised the major impacts that climate change will have on the world for my generation and future generations. This meant i partly changed the way i lived to help make my life more sustainable as well as getting other people i know to live more sustainably. This shows that the film was effective.

In summary Al Gore did derserve the win the nobel peace price as this film has been effective in positively changing peoples lifes, and in raising the profile of importance for climate change and how we can stop climate change.

What actions could you (in theory) undertake that would improve the 'sustainability' of your lifestyle? What might be preventing you from doing these?

My life is not sustainable, this was shown by the fact that i needed three planets to suit my lifestyle when i took a sustainablilty test (http://www.myfootprint.org/en/your_food_footprint/)on the internet. There are many actions i could take to help make my lifestyle more sustainable. Examples are i could buy more products that have less packaging, not use as many plastic bags, not leave electronics such as plasma tele or xbox on standby all the time, buy energy efficient light bulbs, and use walking as a method of transportation more often. Although i have improved from last year as now when i make a cup of tea i only use the amount of water needed, and i use public transport more instead of going to places in a car.

The reasons why i am not more sustainable is because i am used to living this type of lifestyle and changing to a lifestyle that is more sustainable is less convient and involves more effect. These are also the reasons why i feel MEDCs will always fail to be more sustainable, even with international effects to improve sustainablilty with making London 2012 a sustainably event.

I feel people would live more sustainably if there are financial incentives for living more sustainably. For example fines for not recycling and having to pay less tax if you don't own a car.