SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL

There is always a cost to everything that we do be it negative or positive, this will depend on your actions. So I guess the big question is, do the benefits of motorised transport outweigh the cost of it?. I am sure the environmentalists will give you a straight answer NO with capital letters. But on the other hand if you put the same question to developers and others, they will give you a yes answer, and probably go ahead to tell you how far back the world would be without unlimited travel. And rightly so because if you look at the movement of goods and services for example, it has brought tremendous benefits economically and socially to the whole wide world really through creation of jobs etc. For instance fresh vegetables can be gathered from a farm somewhere in Africa and be in a Tesco store in 24 hours time while it is still fresh, brilliant isn't?. There is a whole chain of people that are working within this time frame to make this possible and of course was it not for the advance technology in transport this would not be possible.But if we flip the coin on the other side, there is air and road travel involved here, it is said that CO2 emitted high up in the atmosphere does more damage to the environment, and not forgetting all those tracks on the road to deliver the goods to the stores.

I think public transport can give a lot of answers to a lot of problems with transport but it also has some drawbacks which I think should be addressed to make it more effective and desirable. First of all it is only economically feasible in areas with relatively large populations, as the number of people per square mile decreases, the efficiency of public transport also decreases. This means that the system have to be prepared to run at a loss. In such areas private transport is inevitably more desirable.
Public transport systems are also very expensive to build and to operate which means that consumers have to pay a higher cost to use public transport. Public transport is sometimes also very crowded, uncomfortable, dirty and unreliable and no public transport can provide the convenience of using your own car. And may be this is where we get the link to general lack of fitness in the population at large, we become too comfortable with using our own transport we forget about the side effects and also the unwillingness to change.I also think we live in a motorised culture especially in the UK, because if you look at countries like Holland they have a totally different approach to transport. Their whole transport system is built with green matters in mind for example, they have bicycle lanes and parkings, walk paths etc and sustainable travel is promoted and encouraged actively even their MP's go to work on bikes (www.bbc.co.uk)



Public transport though has it is own advantages especially when it comes to the environment.It is more environmentally friendly in the sense that, for example, a single coach filled with say a hundred people uses only slightly more fuel than does a single private car hence the amount of air pollution per passenger is much less. In addition, it is a more efficient way of transporting people because an underground system operating on two tracks say 36ft wide can transport around 80,000 passengers per hour, whereas an 8-lane motorway around 125ft wide, can only transport20,000 passengers per hour.Public transport is also socially beneficial as it creates jobs, be it the people behind the wheels or the guys maintaining the road works, and it is also a good way of interacting with others (http://science.jrank.org/pages/4169/mass-transportation-)






I think the present transport system needs an overhaul if it is to persuade us to leave our cars behind. First of all, reliability needs to be sorted out, I also think we need to invest more in the system which would improve the number of services operating at one single time. This would mean better road works, better railways etc and probably even better pay for the employees which would help with staff retention. We need to have more bicycle lanes which would encourage people to go on bikes and obviously designated parking areas for the bikes. We also need to encourage car sharing more which might mean that we will need car sharing lanes on motorways and dual carriageways. The government might also want to think about investing in teaching people how to use the bikes at discounted prices to interest people. But I think our biggest problem is the fact that our road works are built with one thing in mind which is vehicles which I think contributes a lot to the motorised culture. The leading figures as well needs to lead from the front rather than the back eg the MP's, they need to dump their big cars and get on the bikes like their counterparts in Holland. There is a transport problem mainly because there is not enough done to combat the problem and there is no way that the benefits can outweigh the costs.

There is a need to invest more on green transport for example the electric cars and things like renewable sources of energy. But I think more emphasis needs to be put on encouraging healthier lifestyles, walking, cycling and probably car sharing and use of public transport to reduce the over reliance on single car use.

IS CHRISTMAS SUSTAINABLE?

When I was little I used to think Christmas was all about Santa Claus bringing me presents through the chimney, and I am sure this is still the thought shared by a lot of children today. At least that's what my 6yr old daughter thinks and it would be so unfair to burst her bubble. So on that thought I am caught in between leaving the word sustainable out of Christmas and contemplating it.That said though, I am sure there is a lot we can do as far as being sustainable is concerned. For example, we can spend less and more importantly spend what we have. This might mean that we buy less presents which most people end up throwing in the bin anyway.I took the trouble of going to my local 'tip' or the waste recyclable sites as they are called this week, just to find out how much waste of good things they get after Christmas, and was amazed at the things that end up there according to the guys. People throw away unopened items something I cannot understand at all, why not even give it to charity? The amount of wrapping paper used is over the board as well, wrapping a present does not mean that someone will not throw it away at your expense, so I am sure this is something we can use less of or none at all if we are brave. Another thing that I never get is all those Christmas lights that some people seem to cover their houses with, I admit it looks smashing, and I am not an expert but I am sure if we flip the coin they do a fair damage to the environment or even economically, the amount of power they use. I know some people will argue that its only for one month in a year and rightly so, but surely we can minimise it.

Over the month of December the UK has spent a staggering 4.67 billion pounds online shopping and the month is not over yet. (www.silicon.com)

This seems to me too excessive given the current economic climate, but I am guessing most people have been over come by the rampant commercialisation that takes place at this period and hence ends up spending money that belongs to banks and credit cards. This is all good (spending I mean) for lifting businesses out of the recession but I think it only deepens the crisis with the national debt.This kind of spending is not socially or economically sustainable because the definition of sustainable living according to UN is meeting your needs without comprising the ability of the future generation to meet their needs (www.un.org/esa/dsd). The future generation has to continue paying the debts that the present generation will leave which is hugely unfair and will limit their capability to meet their needs.

Devoted Christians will tell us that Christmas is about celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ even though there is no evidence to suggest that He was born on that day. They will also tell us that the meaning has been taken out of it because of the commercialisation aspect of it. But if Christmas is about the birth of Jesus Christ, and given the fact that He is the Almighty power in Christianity, I think its only fair that we all 'do-gooders' leave everyone to celebrate the way they feel comfortable, and concentrate more on been sustainable and saving the planet the rest of the year. But according to some people Christmas has nothing to do with Christianity but rather was a pagan festival adopted by christian settlers so that they would convert pagan people in the early years and celebrate winter solstice.(www.bbc.co.uk).This seems to me a more credible explanation since no one seems to know when Jesus was born.

I think Christmas should be nothing to do with presents, lights and fireworks, over spending, over eating or even embarrassing self indulgence. It should be, given the changed and groomy world that we live in today, a time for reflection on the whole year, a time for families to get together and share their joys, hope and happiness and a time to do something meaningful eg helping someone in need. This is how it would work in my changed world. It makes no sense having a kind of a firework competition around the world and what nation has the best display and spending millions of pounds on it. How about we use that money to display who has the best renewable energy sources eg windmills, solar power on the first of January instead of fireworks, that would be great!! But I guess I am just going to have to carry on dreaming looking at what is going on in Copenhagen right now. They all need a reality check don't they? And they call themselves leaders, how about leading from the front and not the fence or the back? And all that CO2 emissions that they have contributed to the environment to get to Copenhagen? The whole thing is not economically, socially or environmentally sustainable, very annoying.

THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN SHAPING PEOPLE'S OPINIONS

Lets take for instance the Sun newspaper, their reading age is 9yrs which simply means that the paper is written to be read by anyone from 9yrs old. My question is, what serious issues would a nine year old understand? Would they really grasp the meaning of sustainable development or even the nitty gritty of climate change? I am guessing not but would like to hear otherwise. So I can honestly see where the paper is coming from by not writing serious issues. Having said that though, should the paper not have a moral responsibility to the society as a whole, given the fact that it is the most read newspaper in the country?

Key audience facts

The Sun:

Read by 8 million people Monday to Saturday
Over 3m copies are sold every day
44% of Sun readers are women
Reaches 1.25 million women with kids every day
22% of readers are 16-34 men



Based on the facts above, I am left to wonder what kind of a society we live in because this is a huge chunk of the population that are committed week in week out on reading junk, gossip and things that don't really matter much. Or is it because the majority of the population are not academically equipped to understand serious issues hence the reading age of nine. One thing is for sure though, the Sun newspaper and its likes are out to make money and not to save the planet and they know that once they start going down that route they will loose the market.Or do we all leave serious issues to experts and politicians because after all that's why we vote for them. But if we talk about the experts, they seem to be split in half on whats causing global warming, some think its man made some think its nature taking its course since there is no evidence to explain previous global warming. Politicians as well don't seem to have a stand on it either, a panel of politicians on BBC 1 Question time on 26th Nov 2009 were keen to point out that they accept global warming is happening but were also keen to point out that they were not sure its man made.There was a panel of five people, four politicians and a comedian who was the only one sure that global warming is man made. If the people we trust to tell us whats happening are giving out such signals why should the Tabloids take any role on serious issues?. But on the other hand why should they (politicians) convince us of something they have no evidence of?.

Lets go back to the picture on top of the page, "big opinions every day", what big opinions are the three likely to tell us? I think we can all guess, "Football" right?. The paper's target audience is 16-35yrs mainly men (BBC NEWS WEBSITE), they are quite clever in keeping up with the theme of who they are targeting. But I just wonder what would happen if the three faces were replaced with three scientists or a big picture of a melting glacier in the arctic. Their target audience would dramatically change and sales would fall plus I am guessing their reading age would have to rise. I also wonder why, just why, given the fact that we are told that global warming is a serious issue that we all need to act on, we are not using the tabloids, soaps and reality shows to influence and change people's opinions on living sustainably. Because in my opinion they have too much power and reach out to the younger generation that I think is not quite convinced on the issue. You can read through the whole of Sun newspaper or even the Mirror without the mention of global warming or climate change, or is the whole thing a con really? Because surely the tabloids and entertainment shows should have a moral and an ethical obligation to their audiences, shouldn't they? They should inform them of the dangers that we are facing and the fact that their children and grandchildren might not have a planet to live in if we carry on doing nothing. Or do they know something we don't? I would want to see a message from Green Peace or Friends Of the Earth at the beginning of the X Factor or Coronation street on global warming and even between the breaks. The message may not be consumed by the millions at once but I am sure it will get there slowly but surely. But I am still not convinced that climate change is as serious as we are told it is simply because when I think about it, I don't understand why we are not using the power of media to do something about it. It is there, it is available, it could do wonders, what is the problem then, unless this whole thing is a swindle?.
If you look at the broadsheet newspapers, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Financial Times, you can count the number of times climate change or global warming is mentioned with one hand. And even then the story is very shallow and usually right in the middle of the paper. How about some big headlines on climate change? Will be interesting to see what the headlines will be prior to the Copenhagen meeting, although having said that I have heard a lot already about how the meeting has already failed before it has began. President Obama is supposed to be passing by there when the meeting opens on his way to pick up his Nobel Prize, he has also announced that the US is committing itself to cutting 83% emissions in 40 years, surely they can do better than this can they? But he is not going to be at the meeting to sign the agreement on cutting emissions (BBC NEWS). So if this are the actions that we are getting from the leaders, how can we expect the media to have a role on serious issues? And how many agreements have they signed up before and lived up to them, none, eg Kyoto, Rio De Janiero. I think the leaders and politicians need to get the grip on the issue and promote it actively and I am sure the media will see the seriousness of the issue and follow suit.

Global problems global solutions

I think it is every ones duty to be informed on all issues that affect our day to day living, regardless on whether we all get the drift of the issue or not. Global warming is a global problem and needs a global solution. The problem is, we are all not on the same page when it comes to tackling problems or understanding them or even worse have the same capability. Sustainable development on a global level, will only be achieved, if we can first achieve equality and fairness among all involved. This will in turn create empowered citizens that are armed to make the planet a better place. I somehow agree with Bjorn Lomborg in his book "Cool It" published in 2007, "Climate change is a 100- year problem and we should not try to fix it in 10 years". He argues that "the cost and benefits of the proposed measures against global warming, is the worst way to spend our money".(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%c3%B8rn_Lomborg) There are other immediate problems like poverty, diseases eg malaria, AIDS,etc that could be tackled with some of the money.

This brings me to the great global warming swindle, where it is claimed that global warming is now a big business and lots of jobs. Definitely, there are no jobs in tackling poverty and diseases, which really supports the video. There are no institutions like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that have been created to look into causes of poverty and diseases around the world. This really posses a question on whether global warming is happening as quickly as they are telling us. The video states that there is no evidence to support that human CO2 is causing global warming as Al Gore suggests in his movie "the inconvenient truth". Al Gore says that there is a link between rising temperatures and CO2, the great global warming swindle video, opposes what he is suggesting and says that the link is the other way round- the rise in temperatures is leading the rise in CO2 by 800 years. The video claims that climate has always changed and what the inconvenient truth does not explain is why that none of the major climate change in the last 1000 years can be explained by CO2, or even why temperatures were higher than they are today in the medieval warm period. Am also intrigued by the fact that that during the post war economic boom, when assumably there was a rise in CO2 due to industrial development, temperatures fell for four decades (www.youtube.com). Despite the fact that no one is denying global warming, I can't help wondering whether human CO2 is the main cause and more so when you see the money involved in the global warming industry.

AS for leaving complicated decisions to others, I think each and every decision should be scrutinized by an independent body to make sure that peoples imaginations are not running away with them on the expense of others. Margaret Thatcher commissioned a group to produce a report on global warming simply to make her case on nuclear power strong, and used tax payers money to make funding available (the great global warming swindle video). I think we have to question motives and interests of all involved in making big decisions. If we can step away for a minute from global warming, Tony Blair made a decision to go to war in Iraq even though the experts on weapons of mass destruction had strongly advised against it(www.bbcnews.co.uk). Most recently, the government disagreed with an expert on drugs professor Nutts and even went as far as sucking him as an advisor,(www.bbc.co.uk) which brings me to ask the question, who should make decisions or should we all get involved?.

But I think in the end what we have to do is listen and evaluate the evidence used in big debates like global warming and then do what you think is right from there, because without the knowledge some areas are quite difficult to comprehend and you cannot be an expert on everything.For example Al Gore tells us that human CO2 is the major contributor to high temperatures, while the great global warming swindle tells us that volcanoes and oceans are the major contributors. Volcanoes produce more CO2 than people, cars and industries put together. And the warmer the oceans are the more CO2 they produce and can also be a major reservoir in that the cooler they are the more CO2 they suck in. The video also states that there is a time lag in oceans warming and the effects being seen(www.youtube.com).So may be, just may be, this is the cause of the global warming that we are experiencing. May be the oceans started warming up some time ago and we are only seeing the effects now, has anyone stopped to think about this? It could also be the reason why we see the glaciers in the arctic melting off so fast, right? It would be nice to blame it on the oceans warming up then we don't have to do anything about it, just chill and wait for the rising sea levels to come and drawn us off the face of the planet. When I weigh the two evidences, I honestly have no idea who to believe or whether we need to do anything to slow global warming or leave it to fate. One thing is for sure though, we need to do a lot of research, reading and questioning to be informed.

sustainable development ENV

sustainable development ENV

"An inconvinient truth"

On accepting the Nobel prize, Al Gore used the lime light to warn that global warming is "the greatest challenge we've ever faced", (BBC 2007). He added that "we face a true planetary emergency and that global warming is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity". Now, global warming is here, its happening and its ahead of all of us, I am quite sure that there are not a lot of people that would disagree with that. But the idea that it is the greatest challenge we've ever faced, to me sounds a bit over the top, because there has been a lot of studies carried out on the global problems that we face today and climate change always comes at the bottom of the list. I know this does not mean that its less important or its not happening as quick as we may think, but it shows that there are far worse problems facing the world today. Ending poverty is right on top of the Millenium Development Goals with Environmental sustainability coming in at number seven out of the eight goals (www.un.org/millenniumgoals). People like the Irish singers Bono and Bob Geldof have seriously and widely campaigned for the eradication of poverty, but no one has even nominated them for a Nobel Prize or an academy award as awarded to the film "An Inconvinient Truth" (BBC 2007). I agree that AL Gore is raising a seriuos climate issue with his film, books and talks and educating people in the process while possing a question or two in the minds of skepticals, but the fact that the Nobel Committee often uses the coveted prize to cast the global spotlight on a relatively little-known person or cause, posses a question on whether he really deserved to win the prize or not. After all, he din't do anything that has not been done before. In 2004 the prize was awarded to a little known Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai who pretty much spent most of her time teaching people mostly in Africa on dangers of climate change and what they can do to stop it (BBC 2007).

Given that Al Gore had a high profile already, I would say that he didn't have to work so hard for people to listen to him or to get his message across, but for people like Wangari Maathai, it must have been an uphill struggle. The point I am trying to get at here is that the Nobel Prize would have gone to a more deserving person or cause. When Alfred Nobel created the Prize with his 1895 Will, he outlined the efforts to be rewarded for, which included disarmament efforts and peace making. But the Nobel Committee has broadened his interpretation and now recognises human rights, democracy and environment to name a few (BBC 2007). If I was an American I would probably say that he deserved to win the Prize due to the fact that the American government at the time was denying that global warming was real. But as reported in BBC news 2007 "Al Gore made it okay to talk about global warming over breakfast and dinner tables all across America". So on this basis he probably deserved the award hugely because America is one of the biggest polluters and the fact that they were in denial made the award more deserving. Having said that though, I cannot help to think that global warming is getting the limelight simply because its happening all over the world and not just in the third world as poverty, hunger and diseases like malaria are. Climate change knows no boundaries between developed and developing world, and no doubt that it is affecting the latter more but I think this is due to the fact that they are faced by far worse problems hence lending them powerless to act on climate change. The Copenhagen Consensus under Bjorn Lomborg states that we should prioritise solutions rather than problems hence putting prices on issues and assessing what is workable in the short and long term. It continues to say that empowering people through ending poverty etc would increase the abilityof dealing with things like climate change as we would all be working towards a common goal. But as it stands, different people across the globe have different priorities(www.wikipedia.org/Bj_Lomborg).

As for the film chaging my views on climate change, it didn't do enough really as it didn't highlight anything I didn't know on climate change. As for others, it depends on what part of the globe they are in because if you show the film to someone who is losing their whole family to either AIDS or Malaria, I don't think they would be slightly interested. The film is effective as far as what boot fits whoever is wearing it at the time. And what was that about the continents being one big chunk at some time in the past, was that really true?

sustainability of my lifestyle

My lifestyle is pretty boring, but I know I could do things like, recycle more and get more involved in community activities. Recycling helps sustain the environment, and getting more involved in the local community will give me more self esteem and a feeling of belonging somewhere. All these will sustain my lifestyle and in the process help the environment and the community as well.

Whats preventing me from doing these is bare and simple ignorance.