Thursday 16 April 2009

Sustainable Communities

On February the 5th 2003 the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, presented the Sustainable Communities Plan (Sustainable Communities: Building for the future). It was designed as a long-term program for “Delivering sustainable communities in both urban and rural areas. It aims to tackle housing supply issues in the South East, low demand in other parts of the country, and the quality of our public spaces.”


I currently live in a small hamlet in South Norfolk, about 6 miles away from the nearest town. My 'Super Output Area' is 014A (South Norfolk).

  • Population of 1,173 (Of which 590 are Male, and 583 are Female).
  • Population Density (people per hectare) is 0.52.
  • Percentage of economically active, full-time employees 34.47%.
  • 481 Households.
  • 79.38% view themselves as Christian, with 0 Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Sikh. The remaining percentage (20.61) are either not religious or there is no data.
  • The super output area is 22,451.49 square meters. 94.3% of which is green space, and 2.5% is viewed as domestic gardens.

Although these figures may be true for my SOA, it does not mean they are true for the community I see myself living in. The SOA is a very large area, at nearly 22,500 square meters, and on the map my hamlet is not even one twentieth of the section. This means the data may not be true for my immediate surroundings, and could be effected by a larger village or an edge of a town. I don't live near a pub, shop, post office or school. The nearest pub is 4 miles away on a main road, opposite the nearest primary school. The nearest Post office and shop is 6 miles away in the nearest town. The only amenities are a village hall, and a church, both of which are kept locked.

Going back to the definition of a sustainable community, the main points of the definition were "limiting waste, preventing pollution, maximizing conservation and promoting efficiency, and developing local resources to enhance the local economy." This is a bit of a problem, because each time a resident needs to visit the post office, or needs a loaf of bread, they must drive to the nearest town, as public transport is very rare and unreliable. This is not preventing pollution or promoting efficiency. Not only do we not have a local shop, the nearest town has 3 major supermarkets within 200m of each other, driving away local businesses and smaller shops. This is not helping to enhance the local economy. A farm shop selling locally produced fruit, vegetables, cheeses, meats and gifts had to close recently because residents bought all their shopping in one go at the supermarket, rather than getting locally produced items, sometimes working out as a cheaper option. Buying imported fruit and veg, rather than local, is not developing local resources.

House prices are relatively high which leads to more elderly people buying a house to retire to, or second home owners able to afford a 'weekend house'. If there was a local shop the residents would use it and promote local services, and hence be a more sustainable community.

As Julia Goldsworthy mentions in the video, if a village is full of second homes "the community dies, the school closes, the post office closes and there's nothing that can be done about it." For a sustainable community to be successful it has to be just that; a community.

Marshall McCluhan once said: "There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth. We are all crew." We ALL have to involve ourselves or have an input for something to happen, which is also true at a more local level, for a sustainable community. For the community to be sustainable, the whole community must be a part of it. If the majority of the houses are second homes, or belong to people that are unable to participate, the community will not be as sustainable as it could be. If only a few houses reduce their waste output then it doesn't make much of a difference, but if all of the houses reduce it then the difference is noticeable.

Monday 13 April 2009

Education for Sustainable Development

‘Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable – to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’

Our Common Future (The Brundtland Report) – Report of the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development


The United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) was initiated at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, where everybody present agreed that sustainable development was nothing more than an interesting idea without education.

Education is a crucial tool for achieving sustainability. Most people would agree that the current economic trends are not sustainable and public awareness, education, and training are key to moving society nearer to being sustainable. Beyond this there is very little agreement. Is the meaning of sustainable development within reach? What do sustainable societies look like? How will they function? Why has the government not developed sustainability in schools? The amount of disagreement has handicapped efforts to move education of sustainable development forward.

‘Education for sustainable development is a life-wide and life-long learning endeavour which challenges individuals, institutions and societies to view tomorrow as a day that belongs to all of us, or it will not belong to anyone.’ (UNESCO, 2004:9)

An important distinction must be made. There is a difference between education about sustainable development and education for sustainable development. Education about… provides an awareness, whereas education for… is the use of education as a tool to achieve sustainability. The second is the type of education the government wish to use.

Sustainable development is difficult to define. What makes it harder is the fact that it is also continually evolving. One of the first descriptions of sustainable development was created for the Brundtland Commission and states:

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p 43).

The general thought is that sustainable development has three components: environment, society, and economy. The well-being of these three areas are linked, not separate.

It’s interesting that while we have such a problem defining sustainability, we can easily identify un-sustainability. We can make lists of unsustainable activities; inefficient use of energy, lack of water conservation, overuse of transportation, high amounts of consumerism… But we should not condemn ourselves over our inability to define sustainability; we should work around the problem.

Haigh (2005) stated that Geography was the best subject to teach a module in sustainable development. To a certain extent it is a good idea, as it involves major aspects of geography such as three main ones; environment, society and economy. These three aspects all draw upon traditional geographical techniques. However, sustainable development is such a large subject it draws on other subjects other than just geography and, in my opinion, needs to be a subject of its own, as citizenship now is.

References and Extra Reading:
As an extra, am I the only one who noticed Greg's "deliberate" mistake on the blogpromt?
"The decade 2105-2104 is the..." Surely not!

Wednesday 11 February 2009

The Recession - Is it all bad?

We all know the economy is in trouble. It is getting ugly and it probably will get a lot worse.

I, along with a lot of people I know, have always been quite sensible with money; being a student compounds this and I only buy things I know I can afford. For example, when I'm at home I drive a Nissan Micra; not the best of cars, but certainly not the worst, and it's perfect for what I use it for. It is used as a "run around" in towns and cities, I don't normally need to drive on a motorway, or at high speeds. It is economical, averaging out at over 40mpg, and the maintenance bills are relatively low. By doing this I am not spending excessive amounts on my car. It seems other people have started thinking the same way now, with new car sales seeing the biggest drop since 1991.
But is the impact of the recession as bad as people are making out? There is one positive effect appearing from the doom and gloom - people are being forced to think about the sustainability of their actions.

People are realising that they can positively contribute to the world around them, as well as make a living, rather than buy into a life full of status symbols, at great cost, that mean nothing to anyone but themselves, it can indirectly benefit everybody else.
Fuel prices still remain high, so people are being more economical with their driving, by driving more cautiously and driving less, therefore reducing the amount of congestion, pollution etc. People are down grading their "Chelsea tractors" for smaller economical cars, scooters and bikes,or using public transport or walking/biking (a positive effect, as people will be getting healthy).

Another positive effect is that people are thinking about turning down heating or using less electricity, gas or other fuels, to save money, all contributing to sustainability. All new houses have a code which the developers must follow to make the houses as sustainable as possible within reason. Hopefully many of these will be available to first time buyers, as the housing market may become more accessible due to the recession.

Maybe facing the reality of the recession will make people reassess their priorities. And surely the fact that people are thinking more about their actions and consequences means something positive has come out of this crunch.

Thursday 11 December 2008

What can we do as individuals?

Sustainability is something anybody and everybody can be involved with. But do people really live sustainable lives? And if not, what can they do to improve this?
Being sustainable can be simple. For example, just by turning off a light as you walk out of the room is being sustainable. What else could people do? Things such as switching the TV off at the wall rather than leaving it on standby, turning the washing machine temperature down by a few degrees, and re-using bags when you go shopping rather than using new ones. These simple acts of sustainability will only make a difference if lots of people.
Recycling is being increasingly advertised in todays social circles, and is becoming a part of everyday life for people. This is a good thing as recycled material can be used more and more instead of producing and using new materials. Local councils are making it easier and easier to recycle, providing bins which are collected fortnightly.

As already stated, people are also being told to re-use as well as recycle, such as re-using a plastic back at the supermarket.

Another slightly more effective way of being sustainable is your choice of transport. Owning a car is almost the normal for people now, but owning a large un-economical 4x4 in the middle of a large town or city is not a good idea. Owning a smaller car will not only help with saving money (obviously but not using as much fuel) but will help the environment as they produce less CO2 emissions.



Another way for people to lead a sustainable life is to research their energy provider to find the most sustainable one. Eon for example use wind as an energy source, so the user will have much less CO2 emmisions. Alternativly homes can be fitted with their own wind turbine.

So, as shown, there are a lot of ways for people to become sustainable, i have named but a few. The main point here though is the fact that no one individual can only help the environment, but if hundreds of thousands of people start and continue, we will start to see a change.

Thursday 20 November 2008

United Nations Debate

Well, we had a UN style debate last week. We got put into pairs and each pair represented a country. Me and Rachael had to represent Belize.


So what did I learn from this exercise? Well firstly, i'm ashamed to admit, I didn't know where Belize was! But fear not, I know now: it lies between Mexico and Guatemala on the Caribbean coast of Northern Central America. As for the sustainable developments put in place in the Country at the moment? Well, there really isn't much they are doing! Compared to other countries in used in the debate I can see why Belize didn't get the money. It's main source of income is tourism so the main connection with sustainable development is Eco-tourism. Not at the top of the UN list of things to do!I enjoyed listening to the debate, although my input was very limited. I know how difficult it was infront of a group of people i knew, I dread to think what must be going through the minds of our UN representatives at the UN debates! I liked learning about strategies put in place by countries I had never given thought to before (The Solomon Islands for example). It showed me that a lot of well developed countries are not being very sustainable, where as a lot of undeveloped countries are trying their best, and using what resources they have, to become as sustainable as possible. This is because developed countries, such as the USA, have so much money and power that they don't need to worry about using unrenewable materials such as oil. Whereas smaller, less developed countries, such as Ghana, haven't got as much money and so can not afford to use as much oil and unrenewable materials.

I also noticed how wide spread the topics talked about were. From the likes of the USA mentioning gun crime and drugs, and other countries mentioning pollutuion or nearly extinct anilmals. The subject of sustainability appears to have completley different meanings to different people.

Overall I feel the debate went well. I learned a lot about other countries and their strategies for sustainable development. If I was to do it again, I would try and research more in depth, I would try and contact the countries government and ask them personally what their strategies are, how they are developing, and try to understand a bit more from their point of view.

Thursday 6 November 2008

Recycling in Northampton

The Northamptonshire Government recently published a " Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy" The 2008 edition is an adopted version of the 2002 copy.


Since 2002 the percentatage increase of recycling happening in Northamptonshire has incresed from 14% to 34%. They want to increse this figure to 36% by 2010 and to 50% by 2020. This means that HALF the waste in a household will be recycling. Compare this to other authorities such as South Norfolk County Council who have a stategy but no target figures and it is a good target, however considering Northamptonshire almost doubled the amount of recycling in two years (from 18% to 28% from 2002-2004) the target of 50% seems less than satisfactory.


A number of questions appear, such as: Have the Northamptonshire Waste Partnership (NWP) thought about telling people to recycle, not only paper, plastics, and glass, but materials such as food and cotton which can be composted? Could the authorities pair up with other companies and recycle other household objects such as mobile phones or ink cartridges? Is there a reward system in place, such as getting paid in return for a certain percentage of recycling per household? There are many more recycling ideas all over the internet, why doesn't the NWP create a "best of" list, with ideas people would find most helpful, for those that haven't looked online.Northampton Borough Council currently collect two bins of recycling: a green one for paper and cardboard and a blue one for plastic, cans and foil. They also collect household waste in a black bin and have a brown bin at some houses for garden waste. Why do they not collect glass? Well they are just about to introduce it after a very succesful trial at the end of Sept 2008, which collected 100 tonnes of glass in five months.


Compared to many other authorities Northamptonshire is doing very well with targets, but this doesn't mean they can't improve. By collecting glass they could increase the amount collected for recycling dramatically. It is good that they have started to collect garden waste, but out of 660,000 homes only 60,000 have garden waste collected. That's less than under 10%! Glass, like the garden waste, is only being done to a small percentage of households (Just 86,000)

Recycling is a major part of British life at the moment, with supermarkets rewarding you for re-using your own shopping bags, charging you for using plastic bags, and some authorities giving out rewards for recycling correctly. If enough people sre given the motivation to start and continue, recycling figures could be dramatically changed for the better.

Further Reading:

Northamptonshire Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy

Reduce Reuse Recycle

A different way of reusing

Recycle.com

Wednesday 29 October 2008

The media: Should it be trusted?

The question "how realiable is the media" leads to an ongoing discussion. Newspapers round up figures and over exaggerate headlines because “bad news sells papers”. There are two main types of newspaper: Broadsheet (such as The Guardian) or Tabloid (such as The Sun).

Tabloids and Broadsheets used to be easily distinguishable, but recently broadsheets have become much more like tabloids (the most obvious difference being colour photos). Even though there is a cloud around the media at the moment some surveys show that the public trust what they here in the news more than they trust their own government!

Another difference between tabloids and broadsheets is how they present news. Whereas a broadsheet would take a subject like climate change seriously with giving us data, figures and information, a tabloid paper links into celebs and gossip (in this case a well known supermarket).This is because (generally) readers of tabloids like to be told about subjects close to there lives whereas broadsheet readers like to learn bits of new information. When talking about the environment in general, The Guardian Online has a very large section devoted to the it, whereas The Sun only has major stories relating to the environment.

Broadsheets have even started reporting about how tabloids report things such as climate change with "only 1.8% of tabloid coverage written by specialist correspondents".

Recently though with news such as the credit crunch and subjects that effect our lives in the short term have taken over the newspapers, both in the broadsheet and tabloid.

The decrease of related stories could be due to one of two reasons:

1) The total number of stories has increased, with the same number, or more, related to climate change or,

2) Simply the number has decreased

Could this mean that the media is losing interest in the subject and concentrating on present topics, or could this mean that the public is losing interest in the subject and the media is just trying to satisfy the publics needs?

The irony with newspapers is that no matter how much they report, discuss or try to teach people about climate change or sustainability, all the major newspapers are printed on unsustainable, unrecycled paper. That's why all of the major newspaper companies, and the majority of the smaller companies, now publish online articles (but surely they can't be called newsPAPERs anymore!?). Which leads to a problem: where does the electricity to power the computers come from? would it be more sustainable to print newspapers and turn off computers, or stop printing newspapers and use the computers?

Further Reading:

C4 accused of falsifying data in documentary on climate change

Media attacked for 'climate porn'

Climate change hits Mars

Alex Lockwood

Encyclopedia of Sustainable Development

Tuesday 14 October 2008

The Uncertain Future Of Cars

Since petrol prices reached an all time high, the media and the government have taken it upon themselves to give hints and tips on how to save money during the recession by advising people to drive less, get a small car rather than a Chelsea tractor, or use public transport.

But realistically, this is not going to happen until decent, reliable public transport that goes where you want, when you want, is available. It is also unlikely that people will drive less because they want, like, and even need, to drive based on any number of factors. Based on my personal experience, living nowhere near a town and with only one bus a day, I need a car to do everything. People are now also choosing their cars to beat the taxes now being enforced. A car that emits less CO2 gets taxed less than one that produces more, and therefore is cheaper to run. As a result of this it lands on the car companies to do something, in order to become more profitable.

It is now almost a competition to get the highest MPG (miles per gallon) from a larger engine. For a normal engine, cars average around 40MPG, but some can reach 130MPG. As an aside, the world record for the highest MPG was recently broken when a team reached an incredible 12,666MPG!

But there is only so much you can get from a petrol or diesel engine, which explains the recent world record - the engine used ran on hydrogen, and wasn’t a road car. Therefore alternative fuels are being increasingly used.

Each car manufacturer has its own vision for the future of cars, be it hybrid, bio-diesel, hydrogen, bio-ethanol, electric or even water.

Bio-ethanol is a relatively new fuel, comprising of 85% ethanol alcohol and 15% petrol. It gives excellent results from the engine, with some sports cars using it already. The Lotus Exige 265E is able to run on anything from 100% petrol to the 15% petrol Bio-ethanol and still have the same amazing performance.

Several other major breakthroughs have recently happened regarding alternate fuels, including the new Honda FCX, which has an electric motor that throws out no emissions, except water.
And finally the Genepax, a car that runs on nothing but Water, "river rain or sea… even tea works"! Just one litre of water will keep the car running at 80kmh (just under 50mph) for more than one hour.


So, the possibilities are endless, it seems. I just wonder, when will a car be designed that runs on nothing but oxygen?

Further Reading:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2312521.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bloom/actions/cookingoil.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/oct/09/martinwainwright

http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/episodes/series10episode9.shtml

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dpf3C2EReVo

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/csmimg/p12b_popup.gif