This is the Tenth and last Blogprompt of the year.

It's not a difficult one.

Think about where you live at home (that is where you live now or where you lived before you moved into a Hall of Residence.)

Think about the area in which you live. Perhaps find out the area covered by your electoral ward or better still your Super Output Area (SOA). Find out from here.

Think about how closely your home area fits in with the definition of a 'sustainable community' that we introduced last week (you might want to refresh yourself of this definition by having a look at the powerpoint or one of the white papers. Here.

Blog to what extent your ward/SOA resembles a 'sustainable community' and what extent you don't think it does. Give some evidence from your observations (or your memories) of this judgment.

Use some of the collected data from your ward or SOA to make your point. Find this from here.

Would I describe my local community as "a place where people want to live and work, now and in the future?" (Society Guardian) Glenfield (also known as Glenfields on Google Maps) is a village West of Leicester's city centre and boasts an ever increasing population due to the attraction of an excellent commuter route into Leicester's central business district, outstanding schools that are performing well above the national average and also the convienience of local shops such as the large Co-op superstore. Glenfield is in the ward of Fairestone with a population of 4,687 (2001 census) in the super output area of Blaby 001F.

Glenfield, under the leadership of Blaby District Council, operates a very strict policy on recycling. The five bins that have been in place for over four years has revolutionised the way people dispose of their rubbish within the area. Combined with the recycling points in the village that further the recycling practice provide excellent, if not outstanding facilties for the local community.

Glenfield's rise in the past few years has lead to various issues arising and I personally believe that the community has struggled with the rise of individuals within the area. For example the Glenfield Hospital renouned for it's specialist treatment attracts many workers from Leicestershire and beyond. The hospital doesn't occupy a large site and usually breaches its capacity, leading to the overspill of traffic into the streets of Glenfield. The problem is that the hospital itself doesn't cross many bus routes and therefore people that use the hospital regularly, mainly the elder generation, have no other option than to drive. The car parking fees implemented by the hospital to encourage the use of the use of public transport has not entirely hit the jackpot, as the amount of cars parked along the streets of Glenfield seems to be ever growing.

To determine if a community is of the 'sustainable' variety, I think the use of statistics is very justifiable. For example, an area that has high employment rates, high levels of public transport to get to the work place and also high levels of qualifications is an area you would anticipate has a certain degree of 'sustainable living' going on.

The Fairestone Ward has a very low unemployment rate of 77 people (2.18%), which could present a sustainable way of living in the Glenfield area. The sustainable way of life is generally more expensive than that of the non-sustiable lifestyle. Therefore an area with low unemployment, generally means the area has a certain degree affluency and as a result inhabitants are able to afford sustainable items such as low emission cars, insulation of houses and produce from the local grocers instead of going to the supermarket where it will be cheaper. Also linked with this is the qualification level within the area, as the better education you have achieved may result in a better depth of knowledge in regards to sustainability and therefore the lifestyle of a more knowledgable individual may be more sustainable than that of a person less qualified. The Fairestone ward has a proportion of a relatively high level of education obtained (65.29& of the population having a level of qualification of some sort) which would suggest a greater knowledge base than an area. This is probably as a result of the family-orientated set-up within in the Fairestone Ward. The high levels of academic acheievement within local schools is a major plus for local residents, with pupils coming from outside the Fairestone ward to obtain a place here.

On the whole I think Glenfield was a very sustainable village, but with the expansion in size and population the demand on local services has taken a real turn, mainly in a negative aspect. The severely cramped street as a result of facilites such as the hospital in this case, has lead to disruption within the community particular at peak times with the traffic little short of unbearable. The local council have acknowedged this issue of the strain on public services/lack of public services with the possible introduction of a park and ride system on the edge of the village, which would reduce the parking issues associated around Glenfield. However, the cost may play an important factor in this development and the ultimate success of the system, as the cost of parking on a street is free compared to whatever the council decide the right fare for the park and ride to be. To answer my question of, Would I describe my local community as "a place where people want to live and work, now and in the future?" I would answer yes, but the future actions of the council remain in the balance in that they need to address a few minor issues that could escalate into a unsustainable way of life being met.

References:
Office for National Statistics., 2001. Neighbourhood Statistics [online]. Available from:
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadAreaSearch.do?a=3&i=1001&m=0&s=1269727164060&enc=1&areaSearchText=le3+8pl&areaSearchType=14&extendedList=false&searchAreas= [Accessed 27 March 2010)


Aldred, J., What is a "sustainable community"? [online]. Available from:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/mindtheskillsgap/story/0,,2176901,00.html [Accessed 27 March 2010]


Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste Management.,2009. Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee[online]. Leicestershire: Leicestershire County Council. Available from:
http://politics.leics.gov.uk/Published/C00000443/M00002069/AI00020094/$CMajortransportreport.doc.pdf [Accessed 27 March 2010]

Education for Citizenship

Education for Sustainable Development also includes making learners aware of their role as 'Active Citizens'. Studies of 'citizenship' are intended to equip students with the knowledge and skills needed for effective and democratic participation. It helps learners become informed, active citizens who have the confidence and conviction to work together to take action in their communities.

It is important to know about rights, responsibilities, duties and freedoms and about laws, justice and democracy. Citizenship encourages respect for different national, religious and ethnic identities.

For the Blogprompt this week first we want you to do a bit of research.

Find out

The constituency in which you live
Your local MP (name, party)
The name of your local council
Which political party dominates your local council

Secondly

2010 is election year.
What is your attitude concerning people who are not planning to vote in the general election?
What main concerns do you have that may influence your vote?

My Constituency: Northampton North
Local MP: Ms Sally Keeble, Labour
Local Council: Northampton Borough Council
Political party that dominates Northampton Borough Council:
Liberal Democrats, 24 members (Dominant)
Conservative, 15 members
Labour, 5 members
Independent, 3 members

My attitude towards people that are deciding against voting is largely negative in the sense that a lot of people feel privileged and honoured to vote and others couldn't care less. Voting is a very important aspect of society in that the leadership that is selected determines the future of the country and inevitably policies on areas such as education, health and sustainability. People that are deciding against the vote may not be entirely acting as a citizen within society for various reasons, and therefore they are unaware of the issues around them. In this instance I think it is probably right for socially impaired people not to vote as they don't exactly know what they are voting for. It just seems a shame when people such as Emmeline Pankhurst fort so hard for the right of female voters and nowadays people decide against voting.
When I place my vote I will be looking into party's agendas on areas such as transport as being a student transport is essential for me to get back home. I would like the new government to implement new infrastructure that will revolutionise the way we travel, in a new less-environmental damaging way. An absolute definite is the healthcare system as there is continuous problems portrayed in the news that beggar belief in many cases. The current economic upheaval is something that I would like new guidance on, as the current government seem to have got us into this mess with little recovery a few years on.

At the moment the theme in class is sustainable travel. Transport undoubtedly has had a major influence on economic and social development facilitating the movement of goods, people and ideas. Greater accessibility, mobility and communication has shaped the type of global society we live in today.

But is there a cost? Environmentalists will emphasize the problems associated with unlimited travel - depletion of fossil fuels, local air pollution, emissions of greenhouse gases, congestion and accidents, destruction of the countryside and the expansion of land under concrete to name but a few. Even our over-reliance on motorized transport has been linked to a general lack of fitness in the population at large.

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



In today’s society, business and commerce is a weapon not to be taken lightly. If you look on the roads today, you will see that a large proportion of the vehicles are either people involved in business & commerce or heavy goods vehicles. Both of these are directly related to our present lifestyles in that we have become so dependent on obtaining our food from supermarkets or our latest design clothing from the High street that the road capacity is being stretched beyond its capable abilities, highlighting a severe transport problem. Large Lorries have to continuously be up and down the country to ensure the shelves are replenished to reach the supply and demand of the shops and their customers. This leads to major congestion at peak times on busy roads such as the M1 where people involved in business & commerce are commuting home. Usually, if there is a problem (car crash on roads), preventing the traffic from flowing, then the road becomes so congested that the traffic tails back for miles. As well if there is a problem on one mode of transport this can sometimes correspond to problems in another i.e. the train. Obviously this can lead to an enormous amount of stress created, as well as being late for work. All of which is very unsustainable in that turning up to work stressed is not going to allow you to work at your optimum conditions, the additional time spent waiting in traffic queues where the car is still ticking over releasing exhaust fumes is damaging on the environment, and finally the prospect of this continuous lifestyle is only going to be damaging on your health if it is a regular occurrence.
I think it all comes down to what you want from your life. In my opinion, there are two sides, do you want to have enough money for you to be comfortable, leading a relatively stress free life and of course being happy, or do you want to be well off able to afford lush cars, but on a day-to-day occurrence experiencing high levels of stress and not being all that happy. Therefore if the latter statement appeals to you, then obviously you will be very much in favour of motorised transport to allow commuting to and from work, probably a high paid job in London or another major city. But on the other side of the spectrum, if you have a job that is low paid but is relatively close to your home, then you will not probably think the benefits of motorised transport is not worth the unsustainable lifestyle.
The main problem is the roads whereas the other means of transport are more often than not running relatively fine i.e. plane and trains. Therefore to combat the issues associated with the roads would be to improve the rail system significantly. This could include additional stations opening around the country, lowering prices on the trains and even by the addition of high speed trains such as the Bullet Train in Japan. This would be much more appealing to the business & commerce executives as they would be able to get to London easily, cheaply and most importantly quickly, if the trains are running as planned. This would reduce the stress on individuals if the trains were reliable, saving money and most importantly reduce the environmental impacts.

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 a changed world?

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

Nowadays the importance of religion within the ‘computer generation’ is very much absent. The appeal of going to church and listening to the vicar say his bit, which can be quite a timely experience, is far outweighed by the presence of the PS3/Xbox, television and the internet. I believe the lack of youngsters adopting the church practice in this day and age is very much due to the cultural transformation that has occurred in the past 30 years. Parents are allowing their children to do whatever with very little discipline and in many cases have ultimately ‘lost control’ of their own children. Forcing a child to go to church when they don’t want to be there can be damaging to the families reputation, which is deemed despicable to the ‘image’ culture that has been adopted in the past 30 years. However the Christmas experience is a different matter entirely. Every family seems to partake in this event even if they are not religious in any shape of form. I believe this is be due to the giving and receiving of presents that is all so appealing to many, particularly the younger ones. Christmas is typically a time where the family is all together, you eat and drink excessively and spend obscene amounts of money on presents that are very much in demand. Therefore many would argue that the importance of Christmas has been lost along the way and that the actual moral meaning has been misled.
At Christmas, I recall a relative selling an item on ebay for quadruple the RRP which beggars belief. The greatest importance of many families’ nowadays is to ensure that their children have their wanted toys on the day and in fact the real importance, the birth of Jesus is an aspect that is not at the forefront of many people’s minds. I am not saying that these people are wrong, as I am very much the same coming from a relatively non-religious family, but the behaviour of some is quite ridiculous when it comes to pleasing the family. This coincides with our present day culture of being spoilt, getting what we want when we want and the general association of the behaviour that comes when things don’t happen as they should have. Therefore I can sympathise with the church-goers in many respects in terms of the true meaning of Christmas being ‘lost’.
The idea of Christmas is very much a positive ideology to many but the implications on the environment are huge. There are many winners, the shops being the main ones, but as well there are many losers in terms of the impact on the environment. As mentioned before, parents spend millions each year on presents for young ones often paying weigh above the RRP. The packaging on many gifts such as toys and consoles is border line on the ridiculous sometimes. Also much of it is non-recyclable and will simply go and congest the landfill sites along with everyone else’s packaging. Christmas is often a time of meeting up with relatives that you don’t see too often. Therefore a large amount of travelling is often needed in the form of cars, airplanes and trains all of which are emitting emissions increasing global warming. Finally, the vast amount of food supplies required at Christmas time is much greater than at any other time of the year. This produces problems with farmers as they have to intensify their production. To supermarkets, the Christmas period is the busiest and often brings along with it exploitation of farmers in terms of their prices for their produce. As well the demand for the ‘perfect looking produce’ is always high. This can lead to large amounts of produce being wasted as it’s not aesthetically pleasing.
On the whole I think the idea of Christmas is great, but I can sympathise with the ‘do-gooders’ in terms of the ‘true meaning’ of Christmas being lost. The modern culture is producing a new age of new ways and experiences which may not meet the approval of many people who have still not adopted this new way.

In class we have looked at some selected articles from some newspapers related to climate change. I have also briefly (very briefly!) commented on the role of the media in shaping the opinions of the public with respect to sustainable development issues.
Most newspapers sold in the United Kingdom are tabloids. Only one broadsheet features in the top six selling newspapers of January 2009 (Audit Bureau of Circulations 2009).

so....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 first question I find myself thinking about is what actually constitutes a 'serious' issue'? I think this is an issue based on class quite frankly as the lower class, generally, have had a poorer start in life which has ultimately resulted in a poorer education and lifestyle. Contrasting is the upper class where money has been readily available allowing for a better education and greater life chances. Therefore the thoughts and feelings of two very different individuals are going to conflict significantly. A serious issue to a lower class individual could mean who's going to get 'booted out' of the X-factor next weekend or is Katie still with Peter. The completely different side of the spectrum is a middle to upper class individual who is educated and familiarises themselves with issues such as climate change or the on-going war. Obviously the newspaper you read will depend on the definition of 'serious' for you as The Sun deal with more showbiz with things like X-Factor, I'm a Celeb and Strictly whereas a proper newspaper broadsheet style will deal with more damming matters such as current political affairs. This could be seen as propaganda in a way as what is said/isn't said provides the basis of your thoughts and feelings in regards to matters that are close to your heart. For example Dr Greg Spellman believes heavily in climate change and is very passionate about the subject. This is probably due to the fact that he has read around the subject in sophisticated newspapers such as The Daily Telegraph, which has ultimately provided the basis for his enthusiasm and eagerness.
I think it is underestimated the role of newspapers. The stories they produce are so widely distributed and generally what people read in the newspaper believe that to be the truth. The Sun being the best selling newspaper in the UK, with 3,146,000 copies sold in 2009 demonstrates that there isn't a role to do in terms of publishing important issues. Katies and Peter Andre will get a full two page spread, whereas climate change will get a cheesy bathos headline in the top left hand corner with a small paragraph talking about the possible extinction of polar bears as people that read The Sun are more interested in polar bears than the planet Earth itself. However on the whole I would say that newspapers do have a role to serve as there are issues that need addressing to the general public as at the end of the day the decisions made now ultimately mould future lives in terms of good stewardship.
Definitely in regards to does the tabloid media and 'low budget entertainment' (reality shows, soaps) have too much power and influence in this country? Watching television is a lot easier than reading a newspaper so the television immediately becomes a weapon. These television programmes are continually seeking ways to become more and more popular. For example Strictly Come Dancing wanted to appeal to the younger generation so they drafted in Alesha Dixon as an additional judge, as she is widely known as a successful female artist who is looked up to by many of the younger generation (16-25). Therefore lots of young girls that follow her avidly will agree with the statements made by her on the show and vote for the person that she has said is great. The newspapers the day after Strictly and X-Factor will be covered in interviews with Simon Cowell and Cheryl Cole. The 'Jedward' story is an amazing example of how television can be so powerful. Simon Cowell is slating these guys every week saying they can't sing and he doesn't like them turning the whole entire country against them. Next week hes changed his mind he now 'likes' them (to get more viewers) the country now likes them and they become heroes in the space of a week.
So on the whole I would say shows like X-Factor and Strictly are far more appealing to many people than reading newspapers that are related to more intellectual issues such as the world wide recession. Nowadays people are more interested in showbiz as we have reached a point in time where values have been lost and the sense of what's right and wrong. In many ways this is not the people's fault, it's the government that has forgot to address the root cause. If people don't get the chances in life then the future looks bleak for many generations to come.

One of the central themes underpinning sustainable development is equality and fairness. This is reflected in the concept of 'empowered citizenship'- in that we can all make a contribution to making our community (our local area, our region, our country, our planet) a better place now and in the future.

Some important areas are quite difficult to understand. Science, economics, politics are often quite difficult to comprehend and yet are central to decisions that are made by others about our lives.

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 ?

To be knowledgable on issues that surround our everyday living is very powerful as there are important issues at present that require our up most attention, but if the attention isn't put forward, then we will suffer in one way or another. As a citizen I believe it is crucial that we are informed as our future generations depend on the decisions made now to ensure that their world is as peaceful and harmonious as ours is now. For example we need to ensure sufficient time and effort is being focused on climate research. The climate is something that is an issue most serious to us all at the moment, and with the climate everchanging we need to ensure that positive actions are being made now to ensure that the world will be sustainable for many years to come. This is linked to stewardship in that we must recognise the problems now, and take appropriate actions to ensure the world is as pleasant in 100 years time as it is now.

I personally would say I am very informed especially growing up in a day and age of outstanding communication methods. Serious issues that are arising such as the world economic crisis and the war for example are issues that we can in a way have a control on. By this I mean that we vote for a party to take control of our country and we vote for the one that suits our needs and aspirations the most. Different parties have diffrerent agendas and policies for the country and therefore it essential we understand the issues that they are in favour of or against to ensure we know exactly what we are voting for. Politicians are well educated people and often give presentations on issues such as climate change in great detail, using sophisticated language and terminology. To be able to comprehend this language it is essential that you familiarise yourself with that certain issue which can be done in a variety of different methods.

The 21st century has opened up a staggering variety of new communication methods especially in the past couple of years. Nowadays a lot of people are using mobile phones with some allowing you to connect to the internet. Iphones and Blackberry's are phones that allow such a thing and therefore allow high speed internet on the go making them ideal for people to obtain news, emails and general information found on the web. I personally have found myself looking at the news pages on the BBC website via my Blackberry as I am eager to stay informed on issues that surround my everyday life. The internet generally is a tool that I use to stay informed using a variety of websites such as the Telegraph, BBC and the Sky news homepage. Sky news is excellent as news is always breaking on their site therefore making it very up to date. As I mentioned before I use the Telegraph webpage. This has replaced the use of newspapers for me in my life as the same information is available to me on the screen where I can access the information all day everyday promptly without any trouble, and of course being very sustainable at the same time. As well I am very privledged to have a TV in my student accommodation where quite often I will have sky news on in the background, allowing the news to break through to me. With climate change being an issue that has arised in the past 10 years I have been fortunate enough to learn about the issues of climate change within the education system. This puts me at an advantage over people that are in their late 20's and over as they missed out on this important information.

There are complicated issues surrounding our lives nowadays with things such as climate change, the war and the global economic crisis. These issues require in depth knowledge that not many people in society will be qualified to address. For example the war in Afghanistan, I couldn't possibly comment on whether we should be there or not. I don't know about any of the strategies or plans that they have deployed but the chiefs do and we have to trust their knowledge and know how to ensure the casualties are minimal and we get the mission complete as soon as possible. The same applies to climate change. The scientists and professeurs collect and analyse information that they have colloborated from across the world and make predictions based on this. However the problem with this is that many scientists have different opinions on why the climate is changing. Some believe it to be a result of anthropogenic issues, whereas others see it as a result of natural change and argue the climate has always fluctuated. Therefore in this instance I think it would be wrong to trust the more qualified academics as there is no right or wrong answer, making it very open to debate. However on the whole I believe that the important decisions should be left to the Government officials who specialise in their fields as they have the knowledge and research to support the arguement.

Al Gore (and the IPCC) won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 (BBC 2007) largely for the production of the film 'An Inconvenient Truth'
The committee cited "their efforts to build up and disseminate 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?


Al Gore, the man the public have become to associate the terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' with begins his efforts in combating the world's pessimistic approach on climate change. His sheer determination and reluctance has made him known throughout the world with his efforts to reduce carbon emissions, which inevitably lead to him winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, teamed with the IPCC.

Having watched 'An inconvienient truth' and reseached his background I have now changed my opinion on Gore. His well structued presentations on climate change made me realise just to what extent the problem with climate change we are actually facing. "The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity," is a comment Gore made which I believe to be very powerful. I believe this because Gore, a Harvard graduate in Goverment who also ran for presidency in 2000, is now prepared to put his efforts of running for presidency aside, and focus his efforts on the impacts of climate change. His efforts took him all over the world to both the North and South poles, glaciers in Argentina and Peru aswell as seeing the retreat of the ice in the Himalayas. Al Gore has a great understanding of climate change mainly due to the help and guidance of his close friend Roger Revelle, who is a professor in geophysics and oceanography and was the first person to prove carbon dixoide was increasing in the Earth's atomosphere. He worked closely with his friend Revelle before making his presentations and therefore was able to collaborate various sets of data that Revelle had collected in order to present a presentation that proved that the climate is changing due to ever rising carbon dioxide emissions. The graphs he illustrated were excellent in demonstrating the significance of rising carbon dioxide emissions and temperatures. Having to use an extendable ladder to point to the top was very powerful and clearly portrayed the extent to which the problem is escalating to. Showing the carbon dixoide emissions line graph and then comparing with the temperature line graph was also very significant as there was clear correlation linking the two. Before I always thought of Gore as an environmental activist who failed to become president of the US and was campaigning for climate change for all the wrong reasons. However now I believe climate change is a real passion of his, and he has now become so focused in his efforts that he would actually turn down presidency in order to continue his campaign! This therefore has had a postive influence on me as I now know a lot more about the guy and respect him for what he is doing for humanitity. I also believe that he could of also positively influenced politicians worldwide who maybe were aware of the fact but not to the full extent that he is. This may have lead to world leaders beginning to think that maybe the problem is continuing and not going away and therefore needing to address the situation.
On the whole I think the film was extremely powerful in its purpose to highlight the problems of climate change. The use of graphics, real life video footage and graphs enables the audience to comprehend the problems in a way that is easy to relate to. Gore also included humour with in the film which I believe always helps as the audience are more enagaged and interested in what you have to say making it more effective. Therefore I would say the Nobel Peace Prize was justifiably given to Al gore as he is leading the fight against climate change.