How Sustainable and/or Unsustainable is the Ward/SAO that you live in?

My hometown is Hemel Hempstead, a New Town that was built to take the pressure off of the large population in London after World War II. It is a fairly small town with a population of about 137,799 (April 2001). The Ward that my house is in is Woodhall Farm and the SOA is Dacorum 005C.

If I was to think of my hometown without looking at statistics, I would automatically come to the conclusion that it is not very sustainable, particularly environmentally. This is because most families in the area have more than one car, and many people I know drive to a lot of places. This is because my area is slightly out of town, therefore to go shopping or out anywhere like the cinema, people would drive. Also, many places that people work are a fair distance and would therefore drive. However, saying this, many people around Hemel Hempstead commute to London to work every day, and to do this with ease they use the train services. This makes the area slightly more sustainable as public transport is used.

Socially and economically, I believe that although the area I am from is not 'poor', the majority of the people living there aren't wealthy and there are areas where conflict is caused due to peoples backgrounds and where they are from.

From looking at information about my home town from census' and surveys, it becomes evident that many of my initial ideas are proven to be correct. Out of 487 households in my SOA in 2001, there were 834 cars or vans, this is almost double the amount of households. This proves that the majority of households have at least two vehicles, which is extremely unsustainable and can cause pollution to the area and ruin the quality for the future. Statistics also show that the majority of people who live in my SAO and are working drive to work, proving my initial idea that my area was unsustainable, because there are so many ways of travelling more sustainably.

Also, it is shown that 210 out of 473 people in my SAO were not working in 2001. This shows how unsustainable the economic situation is and how it is difficult to find employment in the area.

However, there are some sustainable aspects of my area. For example, there are school buses that run to the schools that are further away than walking distance from many of their students. This encourages parents not to drive and to try to teach the children to be more sustainable in their forms of transport. Also, the school that I went to had more than one gate for entrances so that students could easily walk from where they live to encourage sustainable transport.

Overall I think that my opinions are mostly backed up by statistics about the area that I am from, and that it could be a lot more sustainable. However, it could be much worse, and there are many improvements that I know are taking place in order for the area to be improved. There are many ways for an area to be more sustainable, but the changes take time. The fact that there are some more rural areas nearby to where I live also makes sustainability aspects such as being employed more difficult as there is more of a strain on the businesses in the town centre as people on the outskirts are looking for jobs as well as people who live close by.

References

http://nile.northampton.ac.uk/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=/webapps/blackboard/execute/launcher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_4755_1%26url%3D

Education for Citizenship

Where I live - Information

Constituency in which I live: Hemel Hempstead
Local MP: Mike Penning, Conservative
Name of my local council: Dacorum Borough Council
Which political party dominates my local council: Conservative

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

It is almost certain that throughout the whole of Britain, there is always someone who says they don't or are not going to vote. Yes, they may have a reason for this, or several reasons, but you can be sure that after the election, they will complain about who got in, and what is going to go wrong now. I believe that these people, like many don't fully understand politics, I don't, but I will probably still vote so that I have had my say.

I do believe that MPs should make a greater effort to advertise their policies, and make them known, as I think that with a better understanding, more people would vote. For example, as small or as ridiculous as it may seem, I was reading a magazine not long ago, Glamour I think it was and there was a section that interviewed David Cameron, of the Conservative Party. This made me more aware of his ideas and made me understand what the election was about a bit more.

Overall, my attitude towards those that are not planning to vote in the general election is that they are wasting their opportunity to have their say and to try to influence things the way they would like them to be for the future. If people don't vote then they are not putting across their opinions.

What Main Concerns do you have that may influence your vote?

I have never voted before as this is the first year I am able to, so there are not many concerns that I have immediately, however there is something that I have read about that is concerning to me and many other students. There are some parties that would like to increase University tuition fees to £7000 per year. This is an extreme amount of money, because on top of that cost there are also living costs. Many students do not have jobs, and therefore could not afford that kind of money, and to be in that debt each year would mean that the majority of students would be in about £21000 of debt just for tuition fees. Therefore my immediate concern would be for the provision of low cost education. This is where the Liberal Democrats would benefit some students as they would like to make higher education free again.

Obviously there are other aspects that would affect me such as healthcare. Where I am from, in Hemel Hempstead, the Hospital has been closed down and there is not even an A&E. This has caused many problems locally as people need to travel to the next town hospital which is Watford, about a twenty minuite drive away in any emergency. If this continued throughout the country, there could be a shortage in healthcare and would cause major problems, so the provision of healthcare is also important to me.

As I have not voted in the past, i called my dad to ask him what his concerns would be so that I could see a different point of view from mine. He replied that he had similar concerns with education, but from his point of view not so much the costs, although that would be a concern, but also he wanted to make sure that there was a high standard of education, as he has three children all at very different stages of education ranging from primary education to University. He was also concerned about taxation, because if taxes increase he has to pay more money out.

There are many concerns that everyone has when thinking about who to vote for in the General election, but it is worth voting because it could make that difference that you want.

References

http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/constituencies/hemel-hempstead

http://readyforwinners.hertscc.gov.uk/public/Editor/assets/Issue3/dacorum%20copy_Contact.jpg

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?

Throughout the majority of the world, transport is arguably one of the most important aspects of society. By this, I mean that people rely on motorized transport on a daily basis, whether it be delivery of goods to a buiseness, running a business or even time keeping. Motorized transport means that people are able to get around much more easily, so for the majority of people, if asked the question 'Is there a transport problem?' their answer would often be no, unless they were to complain about the problems traffic causes them as an individual. However, as someone who knows in slightly more depth than some of the problems caused by transport, I would say yes there is in fact a problem. The 'Department of Environment' state different ways that air pollution is caused, and although there are natural causes, as we all know such as emissions from volcanoes, one of the biggest problems are motor vehicles. The Department of Environment's website states 'In 2004 nearly 14 million vehicles were registered in Malaysia, almost double the number from a decade ago. The number will increase in the next few years, with higher disposable incomes, rural-urban migration and the lack of efficient public transport systems' (text: 'Clean Air for our Cities, 2006, by DOE Malaysia and German technical co-operation) This quote states some of the reasons for increased car use, and shows the extent to which people are buying, many famillies have more than one car, therefore causing a lot of pollution. Transport is causing many problems, but we need to think about more than just cars and transport on the roads, what about planes? The air pollution that they cause is huge, and it is often forgotten about by people.

However, although I believe that transport is a major cause of environmental problems, it doesn't mean that i believe cars shouldn't be used and limited at all. What i do believe is that people should think about their actions as there is often a way that people could make a minor change and a big difference to the environment if everyone was to make a change. For example car sharing could make a difference. I know from personal experiences that people like to take more cars to places than necessary, particularly my friends at home. As they have all fairly recently passed their driving tests, they all enjoy driving and want to take their cars out, even when they are going to the same place, so they often only end up with one or two passengers each and all take their cars. If they took it in turns to drive and only took the amount of cars needed it would not only save them money, but would also save the air from pollution. If everybody that was going to the same place shared cars and gave lifts to each other, the environment could be much cleaner.

Many people believe that where possible, public transport should be used, I have to say, although it may be much more environmentally friendly, i don't think that trying to enforce it will ever work. Think about it, if you had the choice to drive in your own car or get on a but full of people where you may have to stand up for the duration of the journey and push past people in order to get off...what would you choose? I know my answer, I would never choose public transport over a car, as bad as that may sound.

In my opinion, the benefits of motorized transport, in the form of cars to individuals definitely outweigh the costs. It enables fast and sufficient means of getting to work and appointments and it is comfortable. Also, even in the forms of buses it is much quicker and easier than walking, and in todays society, people would much rather pay a price than walk any distance, although this is a generalisation. In the case of planes, the benefits definitely outwigh the costs, it may be one of the most expensive forms of transport, but the opportunities that this form of transport provides are endless. It enables people to be able to travel and get around the world at a much quicker speed than years ago when ships were the only option.

I believe, as i mentioned briefly earlier on that there are several things that could be done to make our present transport system more sustainable. Firstly, people as individuals could make a difference by making changes to their lifestyles, and it could even benefit them aswell as the environment. My dad sometimes cycles to work instead of driving. He does it for his health and to try and be a bit fitter, however although he may not realise it, it helps the environment as well. Saying this, my parents are most likely the sort of people that are causing problems, my mum drives everywhere even if it is walking distance, purely because it is easier, I'm not saying this is a terrible thing as many people believe that if they change habits, it still wont make a differenct, but in fact it would if everyone in a country, or even globally just made one minor change. Also, i believe that governments could provide some sort of reward for people regularly using public transport or car sharing, as it would encourage people to use a slightly more sustainable way of travelling, this way people may use public transport and the environment would be positively affected.

However, in some parts of the world there are already ways in which both public transport and car sharing is encouraged. For example, London has the congestion charge, which although an inconveniece to many commuters, has been successful in reducing the cars passing through certain areas of the city and therefore the traffic is reduced along with air pollution. I also noticed, from my own experience that when I was in California in 2008, there were car pool lanes, which meant that cars with more than one person travelling in them were able to travel in another lane which would allow them to skip traffic. I think that this is a really good idea to encourage car sharing and as a result reduce traffic and air pollution.

Overall, although motorized transport may be a problem, there are still many other aspects to environmental problems, however if changes were made, the air quality in many areas could be improved significantly because the carbon emissions from vehicles such as cars are so great that the fossil fuels being burned are causing the environment great damage.

References

Department of Environment. (04/02/2010). Sources of Air Pollution. Available: http://www.doe.gov.my/en/content/sources-air-pollution. Last accessed 04/02/2010.

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

Christmas is arguably the biggest, most well known and most celebrated festival of the year. Everybody enjoys it and many like to make a statement. This statement is often through a huge amount of lights and decorations outside and inside houses, huge meals on Christmas day and extravagant presents. I know from my own experience of Christmas that i get more gifts on Christmas day than I do on my birthday, and so do many of my friends.

I have seen in the town where I live, even the street where I live 'over the top' decorations being put up. There is something in the local papers every year, but never is it described as unsustainable, although it is. This year, a pensioner has put up decorations in sheltered accommodation that children from schools are able to go and look at. I believe that this just brings the spirit of the season and makes many people, in this case old and young, very happy. On the other hand, in the past there have been complaints about the 'tackiness' of over the top decorations. For example on the BBC news website from 2004 there is an article claiming that a decorated house recieved complaints saying 'I have never seen anything as tacky, common, cheap, pound shop in my whole life.' This is the negatives that are brought to light about Christmas decorations, not many people seem to think about how unsustainable it is.





The picture above shows the house that recieved these complaints. It is over-decorated and an example of one of the many houses which are unsustainable over the Christmas period.

The point that I am trying to make is that, no, of course Christmas is not in any way sustainable, but it is a tradition, and although one that is getting more and more extravagant, it is now a way of life for the time of year. It will never change, no matter how many people moan or try to change it. The waste from food packaging and left over food, wrapping paper and boxes that the presents come in is endless at this time of year, but once a year, what is the problem? There is waste and unsustainable things happening every day of the year, worldwide that should be worried about, not one day of the year.

I do understand where some people are coming from when they say that the waste isn't necessary and the real meaning of Christmas has been forgotten. Many people don't go to church, myself included, but it is no longer just about that. And the waste? yes, my household is full of it at Christmas our bins probably fill within the day, wrapping paper and enough food to feed the five thousand...but its all in good fun and I honestly, although I understand sustainability, think it should be forgotten for just one day/week of the year. It is one of the only celebrations that is known and celebrated worldwide.

If the world changed and Christmas had limited decorations, rationed food and no presents, it wouldn't be the same. No, of course Christmas was never origionally meant to be about presents and food, but for many people it is not to do with religion any more, not everyone believes. For me, Christmas is about family and friends. However there is that saying, Christmass is for giving...

The 'do-gooders' need to find priority in the everyday problems of sustainability and just let people enjoy christmas in their own way, even if it means over the top decorations for a few weeks of the whole year. It seriously cannot make that much difference.


References

BBC News. (2004). Are Christmas decorations too tacky?. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4104297.stm. Last accessed 09 December 2009.

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

The media most probably has the biggest influence on people in this country. Most of what people talk about, and often believe is from the media. It is the media that is blamed for things like girls wanting to be size zero and boyswanting certain video games. I believe that to a certain extent this is true as people read newspapers and magazines and read in them what they should be doing and how they should look, however, I rarely see any serious issues raised in these sources and this is what is, in many ways, worrying.

I don't often read newspapers, particularly not broadsheets, and looking at the information given on the blog prompt, neither do many other people, as there is only one broadsheet in the six most popular newspapers. This could be for many reasons, but I believe that it is for the reason that tabloids are easy to read, and written in a fairly short and simple way. Therefore people buy these to catch up on the news. Take the Sun for example, the most popular newspaper and the most well known tabloid, I have never read a story in the Sun about Climate Change or any such issue, particularly never as a cover story. The cover stories of the Sun are Usually the X factor results, new celebrity romance, or even the breakdown of celebrity relationships. This is because it is what many people want to read about, however these are not serious or even important issues of the world, and it is not keeping people informed on what is happening.

I am not a great reader of broadsheets or newspapers like the Daily Mail so can see why people may not enjoy reading them. The reason I mentioned the Daily Mail is because I see it as a completely different paper to the Sun, and although it is a tabloid, from what I have seen, it does have articles about reality TV and such, but it also raises some other issues, one of which being politics, which is an important issue in many peoples eyes. Some headlines on the Daily Mails website include 'Neighbours' fury as BT chairman is only person in village to get high speed broadband' and 'Policde set search to Tiger Woods' Mansion and seize his Medical Files after he misses third interview' and 'Britain pledges 500 extra troops for Afghanistan as Obama prepares 30000-strong surge'. This shows a variety in the news that they put forward, and therefore is more informative, and possibly in many way smore reliable than the Sun.

The Daily Telegraph is the only broadsheet in the top six papers according to the information given on the blog prompt, therefore I have looked into the headlines to see what issues are raised in this paper and how informative it could be about serious issues in the world today.The outcome I found was different to the tabloids, to begin with it was much more to do with politics than celebrities, and although on the website there was a section on celebrity news, there wasn't anything on the cover stories, showing that celebrities aren't the most important feature of this newspaper. There was also a section on the Earth, and the majority of this section was based on articles to do with climate change. I therefore believe that the Daily Telegraph does include serious issues in its news, however that doesnt necessarily mean that there is enough of this information. I have found that broadsheets are much more related to serious issues than tabloids are. It is a shame in my opinion that broadsheets aren't read enough by people as they could change many views and even educate people in some issues that are raised. I am the first to admit that I am one of those people who don't read broadsheets, and maybe should, but for me this is not necessarily because of the differnece in information given, but more to do with the fact that they are not as easy to read as the tabloids are.

As a result I do not believe that the UKs top selling newspapers relate enough to serious issues, unless you are someone who believes that serious issues include the winner of the X factor. I believe that tabloids should include at least a few more articles on serious issues such as climate change, new laws and legislations, wars and politics.

I believe that it is the responsibility of the media, particularly the newspapers to cover stories related to serious issues because of the fact that they are so influential over the public and can make a huge difference in what people believe and how they act, as we have found in relation to other media stories and actions. Due to the fact that the tabloids are the most popular newspapers, I believe that this should put them under more pressure to increase the serious information that they include as well as keeping the stories that people enjoy reading and this would increase the chance of people reading about the more important issues and therefore there would be more people becoming educated in these issues and to have knowledge to form opinions on these issues and possibly make some changes if they are or will affect these individuals in any way.

Tabloid media does have too much power and influence over this country at the moment, but they could use this to their advantage and it is possible to make the right changes as they could make the important issues into more interesting articles and improve the influence that they have over people. However, personally I believe that it is the 'low budget media' such as reality TV shows and soaps that have far too much influence. This is because in my opinion, they are interesting to watch, but they do not teach any lessons about the realities of the world. People begin to believe that soaps and celebrities are what are important because that is all that they see and read about, but they are missing out on the important issues. The most watched TV is not documentaries on what IS important and what is happening in the world, but soaps and reality TV, which shows just how much influence they have over people. However much this may be my opinion, I know that it is unlikely to ever change as it is what makes peope a lot of money and what people are interested in, but I do believe that people should make more of an effort to show an interest in world issues and important ones at that.

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?

Sustainable development is such a broad subject that it is often difficult for many people to know how informed they really are, and how easy it can be to become more informed about several areas. The most known area of sustainable development is most probably climate change and global warming; however there are also many more aspects to this, broken down into smaller parts such as recycling and carbon emissions. Learning about sustainable development in my A-levels, I also found that the topic also covered such areas as preserving coasts. I learnt that it could involve anything that was developed in a way that would help future generations without affecting them and causing maintenance to be needed. The reason I mentioned coastal areas is that I found that Dune Stabilisation methods was more sustainable than sea walls, as sea walls would crack and need maintenance, but dune stabilisation would last a long time.

There have even been debates and articles written on mining. This is because sustainable development is the development that will not prevent the needs of future generations from being met. ‘…sustainable development -- defined as meeting the needs of this generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. There is much public antagonism towards mining, and three years ago chief executives of leading mining companies recognised the need for constructive engagement with the industry's critics.’ (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-77133470.html) This quote shows a definition for sustainable development and is almost self explanatory as to why mining is badly looked upon. It has nothing to do with global warming in this case, but is an important aspect of sustainable development as if it was to continue, future generations could miss out on fuels that they need and this is not sustainable.
I therefore believe that is my duty as a citizen to be ‘informed’, however some areas of the subject are more important to citizens than others. As I believe that global warming is happening and it is a danger to the world for the future, I think that it is extremely important that citizens make an effort to understand the importance of the changes that are occurring, because if everyone had an understanding, changes could be made, and maybe the consequences of global warming could be reduced. I also think that as citizens it is easy to be informed about these issues, from recycling to your carbon footprint to the effects of global warming on the world. As it is such a huge subject in the news. There are newspapers, websites, books, television programmes and even films such as Al Gores ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ that inform people about climate change and global warming. I think that this is one of the most researched issues and there is a huge amount of evidence and information that is easily accessible to any member of the public. However, it is in many ways a controversial issue and therefore there are many biased articles, particularly on the internet and in certain newspapers. Sceptics that believe that global warming is a natural occurrence will do as much as they can to get this point across. I therefore believe that as citizens it is important to understand the issue and have an opinion on it, but we need to be more educated in the facts. If people were to watch ‘An inconvenient truth’ I believe that they would see some of the scientific evidence that shows the extent of the consequences of climate change. I think that the film shows enough information to inform citizens of all they need to know about climate change.

People who are studying the subject of sustainable development or areas around it need to know more than most citizens and therefore there are more resources available to them. It is also easier for these people to understand as they are interested in the subject and want to read more into the facts and evidence. They need to understand why there are different opinions on certain topics and what evidence proves, why it is trustworthy and how to interpret graphs and data. This is important as these people are those who will be making people in the future understand what is happening and some will be finding and giving the evidence.

I believe that I am fairly well informed about sustainable development, but this is due to my education and what I have chosen to study at a higher level. I have been taught about the topic, and I sometimes find it hard to understand as it is such a broad area, however, I find it extremely interesting and therefore look more into the subject than many citizens might. As I mentioned at the beginning, sustainable development covers several areas, and not all citizens may realise this as it is not made very public. It is mainly global warming and climate change that is broadcast on the news and that makes headlines in newspapers, however there are many more areas that may not be as important worldwide as they are to individuals. This includes being healthy, staying safe, clean environments to live in and the effects of drink and drugs, plus much more. Lifestyle has a lot to do with sustainable development, but as citizens we are not well informed about this in a clear way. There have been TV programmes to do with health for example such as Jamie Oliver’s school dinners and even the programme ‘Embarrassing Illnesses’ however many people wouldn’t see this as a way of being sustainable it is just entertainment on the television and many people may not see the significance as they are not informed about these things.

Complicated decisions such as ways to reduce emissions should be left up to others as they are the more educated individuals who specialise in the area that they are making the decision in. The decision makers should be the scientists who find the evidence because they know the facts and the best ways to deal with the matters. As professional as many politicians may be, they do not know the facts, and in many cases, this is why mistakes are made in dealing with complicated issues such as climate change, even they are not as informed as they should be to make such decisions. This is just my personal opinion, but citizens do need to be informed to an extent that they understand the matter; however they do not have to know specific figures and data, that should be left to the experts.

In conclusion I believe that it is important for citizens to understand some areas of sustainable development in a simple way, but enough so that they are able to form and opinion and have an understanding of what is published in the news. It is climate change that I believe that people should have some understanding of, but also they need to understand that sustainable development is also about looking after themselves and keeping things in a way that won’t affect future generations. My conclusion is therefore that the experts of the different areas should make the complicated decisions as they understand fully what it is about.

Bibliography

Mining Journal. (2001). Article: Sustainable development: the view from the bridge.(People antagonistic to mining)(Brief Article) . Available: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-77133470.html. Last accessed 11 November 2009.

To what extent do you think that 'An Inconvenient Truth' deserved the prize? To what extent could the view of climate change be positively influenced?

Opinions on Global Warming around the world vary, some don’t even believe that it is happening to the extent that it is, and some believe that it has nothing to do with human activity. The fact is that it is happening, and there is evidence to show that human activity doesn’t just make a difference, but an enormous difference to climate change. There is an amazing amount of attention that is being paid to Global Warming in the media, not only in the news and some magazines, but there have been films made to show the severity of climate change. ‘An inconvenient truth’ was among them and this was particularly intriguing as none of it was fictional, it was a documentary and based on a power point presentation by Al gore. Other films on climate change and global warming included ‘The Day After Tomorrow’, which although fictional, showed a daunting idea of what could actually happen in the future if the world carried on ‘business as usual’, although it probably wouldn’t happen in such a short space of time that it did in the film. Another film, based on a novel, but shows the effects that a huge surge of water could have on the Thames Barrier is ‘Flood’. http://www.mymovies.net/player/default.asp?t=Flood+%2D+Trailer&trid=3082&filmid=6671&s=2&n=2 - this link leads to a trailer of the film flood. Although fictional, it show some of the ideas that Al Gore puts across in ‘An inconvenient truth’ and I believe that it brings to light the severity of the problems that he describes. In ‘Flood’ the storm occurs at high tide, causing a surge at the Thames and London to flood, putting millions of lives at risk. If sea level rise wasn’t an issue, then there wouldn’t be such a possibility for these catastrophic consequences.

In my personal opinion, the Nobel Piece Prize that was won for this film was deserved for the educational value and the way that it successfully puts forward the possibilities of dangers that climate change could cause, and shows some seen and some unseen images that are quite daunting to watch. It is not the entertainment value that is important in this film; it is the fact that the aim to inform people was fulfilled in the creation of ‘An inconvenient truth’. Although based on a PowerPoint presentation, my attention was kept as Al Gore, while telling a serious truth, used comedy and images to keep it interesting.

I found the film scary to watch and now have even more of a fear of what sort of a world my children, or their children may have to live in. However, although this film is worrying, it is also in many ways amazing to see the changes that are going to happen. A quote that describes my opinion in a sentence is from a BBC review, on talking about how humans have ruined the planet, the review goes on to say, “There are diagrams to this effect, although they all seem to show the same, alarming image: a single line, climbing towards disaster. It's not as depressing as it sounds - no, hang on, it is as depressing as it sounds, but Gore is an engaging host nonetheless.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2006/09/11/an_inconvenient_truth_2006_review.shtml)

My opinion on climate change before the film was similar to how it was after the film, as I have always believed that it is Humans that are causing the extensive problems to the environment and adding to climate change. One thing that did change though, was my opinion on what should be done. Switching off lights and unplugging electrical devices isn’t going to make a difference in the slightest because global warming has gone past that stage, something huge needs to be done, people need to cut down on consumption completely.

Other peoples opinions, I believe could also have been changed by this film, even sceptics who watch this must sit and think twice, maybe let it cross their minds that human activity does have a part to play in the climate change problems. There was evidence shown in the film of Carbon Emissions increasing by a huge amount over recent years, and this is obvious that the increase is due to human activity, thanks to advanced technology and increased wealth in many areas of the world.

In the film, a big issue raised is snow melt on mountains, and the disappearance of glaciers. This is a result of climate change and the global temperatures increasing. As a result of ice melting, snow melt and the disappearance of glaciers, the sea levels are raising and this is causing land to slowly disappear, and in the future major cities of the world such as Manhattan and Bangladesh where millions of people live will disappear. Right now, the Maldives are already slowly being taken from the sea and within the next ten years are expected to have been taken off of the map.

The sea levels are not only increasing, but the temperatures of the water is increasing, meaning that when tropical storms hit, they are likely to be worse as they are formed usually over water and moved inland, or in hurricane Katrina’s case, the hurricane can be made worse while travelling over the warm waters. This causes destruction and danger to people and the environment, and even the economy.

In the film Al Gore also spoke about measuring carbon emissions since 1958, however, scientists can go back thousands of years by looking at ice core extractions from Antarctica. These show bubbles in the ice, for each year there is a layer, and the bubbles can be tested for carbon dioxide. These show a huge increase in carbon dioxide levels in recent years. This shows that there is a link between emissions and climate change, as it has all been increasing over recent years. Scientists have said, as Al Gore mentioned in the film that if the Antarctic Peninsula begins to melt and temperatures there increase, then this is a sign of Global Warming. An external source from this film that also shows this evidence is from the synoptic paper from Edexcel for A level Geography in June 2007, which was based on Antarctica. The source comes from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), so is reliable, and states “Scientists now believe that the human influences and the resultant enhanced greenhouse effect, caused by increases in greenhouse gases, are responsible for accelerating rises in temperature.” This is further evidence that the retreating of the Antarctic Peninsula and temperature increase is encouraged significantly by human activity.

Climate change, however is an extremely controversial issue and there are many people who don’t trust, or agree with Al Gore’s evidence in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. To me this is unbelievable as pictures and graphs have proved the inevitable that if we are to carry on in the same way that we are at the moment, there will be huge loss to the world.

If this film doesn’t change the minds of sceptics, I really don’t know what will. There is no denying that Global Warming is happening, and something needs to be done about it, yes, there was a medieval warm period, but it didn’t warm to the extent that the world is now, it is the increase in the use of fossil fuels and carbon emissions that the world is warming so much. To me, this film couldn’t have been much more effective, it showed exactly how the world used to be and what is now happening to it, it made me realise just how much there is to lose to climate change, and how desperately there needs to be severe changes made worldwide to reduce the dangerous human activity causing these problems. In a summarised answer to the question, I believe that the film deserved the award that it recieved for the way it puts across, in a simple yet effective way, the dangers of human activity as a cause of climate change. I also hope that it has positively changed peoples opinions on climate change, and also that the idea has been put across and made people understand that Global Warming is happening, whatever their views on it may be, and it is changing the world in a negative way at the moment.



Bibliography/References

Arendt, P. (2006). An Inconvenient Truth (2006). Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2006/09/11/an_inconvenient_truth_2006_review.shtml. Last accessed 23 October 2009.

BAS, stated source in booklet (British Antarctic Survey), Taken From Edexcel GCE Geography B Advanced Unit 6: Synoptic Assessment Issues Analysis – Antarctica Advance Information, Page 6, Resulting Changes to Ice Sheets, June 2007, copyright Edexcel Limited 2007