Now this post is a little different to
previous ones, it still has strong undertones of the environmental factors, but
instead I am going to talk about something more plain and every day, milk tops
to be precise.
You may wonder what the relevance of milk
tops is to environment, but there is a reason I am blogging about this,
there is an environmental consequence! Basically, it is the green colour of the
tops of the milk cartons that is the issue, there has been pressure to change
the colour because "it is because the green pigment of semi-skimmed milk
bottle tops affects the ability of the plastic to be recycled", I won’t go
into too many details regarding the HDPE and electron microscope that shows the
molecules and their resistance to being recycled, but to put it simply the
green colour does not separate from the plastic through the recycling process.
So what comes out is a "green-tinged recycled HDPE lentils that no one
wants to make into new milk bottles." The problem here is that if they could
persuade the supermarkets to make the tops white, there would be no issue in
recycling but " the supermarkets wouldn't budge, saying the colours are
too useful for shoppers to distinguish different types of milk", the
colours have been toned down to make the process easier but there is still the
issue of recycling today. This is a relatively simple issue that should not
need so much debate and argument in my opinion. To make every milk top white,
would be a simple task and although it would make it slightly harder to
spot which type of milk you want, that is what the labels are for. They could
for instance, change the colour of the labels to match, which would be big
enough and noticeable for the customer. The impact is larger than just thinking
that it is a small issue, the wider consequences mean that we cannot recycle
these tops properly and have to waste more finite resources creating new
plastics, where the old green tops inevitably go into landfill.
Paving the way through progress is the
Japanese. As they "have already done it. They passed a law in 1995,
phasing out coloured drinks bottles, and now have recycling rates of 75%."
This is compared to our 30% recycling rate of coloured drinks bottles, shows a
remarkable difference that would make a significant impact on the wider issue
of recycling and sustainability. A small
change today, can make a large change in the future, it is about looking at the
wider picture here, not just simple colours on the tops of your milk in the
fridge.
Here is the link to the article, as always,
if anyone is interested to read further:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/13/why-green-milk-bottle-tops-not-green-option
Sunday, 13 April 2014
The Media's relationship on the environment
Through my other side of my University degree
I have studied the media, its affects on the audience and the different
processes that all revolve around perception and transmission. I recently read another’s
blog post about the media and the representation to the environment and thought
I would try to enlighten this a little and throw in my own opinions on the
subject.
There is a theory we had to learn many years ago in A level I believe is defined as a moral panic which was first established by Stanley Cohen in 1972. Basically this in its most simple form is where a controversy, disaster or threat has been established in the media and then blown out of proportion by either misstated facts, or the way the facts are transmitted to the public which then causes mass hysteria, or an overblown response. With these subjects, sometimes simply reporting the facts can be enough to generate concern, anxiety or panic. In Stanley Cohen’s book the most quoted and relevant phrase is that a moral panic is defined as a “condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.” Looking at this it is easy to see how this can relate to specific organisations and environmental issues that have arisen over the previous years. The Daily Mail is a key organisation to reflect on here, they often over exaggerate situations and push things out of proportion, with the environment, nearly every week there is an article in the paper saying that there is no turning back and that the ice caps will melt, and that will be the end. Although I am exaggerating here, my point has come across; we need to look at articles with a pinch of salt as the expression goes, and to not follow the hysteria associated with articles on the environment. You can never trust one source; even hard facts can be skewed to show issues in a worse light, and never trust the Daily Mail.
You can look up the theory: Moral Panic, online or in Stanley Cohens book Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972)
There is a theory we had to learn many years ago in A level I believe is defined as a moral panic which was first established by Stanley Cohen in 1972. Basically this in its most simple form is where a controversy, disaster or threat has been established in the media and then blown out of proportion by either misstated facts, or the way the facts are transmitted to the public which then causes mass hysteria, or an overblown response. With these subjects, sometimes simply reporting the facts can be enough to generate concern, anxiety or panic. In Stanley Cohen’s book the most quoted and relevant phrase is that a moral panic is defined as a “condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.” Looking at this it is easy to see how this can relate to specific organisations and environmental issues that have arisen over the previous years. The Daily Mail is a key organisation to reflect on here, they often over exaggerate situations and push things out of proportion, with the environment, nearly every week there is an article in the paper saying that there is no turning back and that the ice caps will melt, and that will be the end. Although I am exaggerating here, my point has come across; we need to look at articles with a pinch of salt as the expression goes, and to not follow the hysteria associated with articles on the environment. You can never trust one source; even hard facts can be skewed to show issues in a worse light, and never trust the Daily Mail.
You can look up the theory: Moral Panic, online or in Stanley Cohens book Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972)
Monday, 31 March 2014
Halting Arctic whaling in Japan, my thoughts on this.
I read today in the Guardian that Japan is to halt Arctic whaling because they
are not actually slaughtering whales for 'scientific research' as they had
previously stated. The reason they are killing the whales according to Japan is
because it is "necessary to examine the age, health, feeding habits,
exposure to toxins and other characteristics of whale populations, with a view
to the possible resumption of sustainable commercial whaling" and could
not gather this research with non lethal methods, however this seems rather
suspect as many campaigners have pointed out, the data they get from these
methods are limited and not of real benefit in the long run anyway. Campaigners
here have called this a dramatic victory and have been campaigning for this to
stop for over four years, so there is much cause for celebration it seems even
if the ban is only temporary and the Japanese will probably continue to
advocate whaling in the future.
In my honest opinion, I believe that whaling should be stopped, I am definitely leaning towards the view of the campaigners even though in all fairness, the article seems to not have any defined slant, it has tried to lay out the facts that have been given without any sentiment shown such as giving both sides of the argument. This is typical of the Guardian and a thing I believe is the right way to go in terms of presenting the hard facts, and allowing users to give their opinion in the comments section. I am trying to justify whaling but even with my limited knowledge on the subject, I cannot. Many may agree and disagree with me on this subject, I would welcome comments on your own personal thoughts and any other statistics found as I have not delved deep enough into the world of whaling to make complete, definitive statements on this.
It was also interesting to read the comments from users below, I have picked out a select few that I thought warranted attention:
"Nine years, 3600 whales slaughtered and only two papers?
You're rubbish at science fellas - go and find another hobby."
Another stated:
"Sure this is progress but sadly, there's a weasel word in the following statement:
The International court of Justice on Monday ordered a temporary halt to Japan's Antarctic whaling programme,
The whale in the room is "temporary".
There was not many opposed to the ruling however one user stated:
"They have been carrying out good work for decade - in the interest of all. They can, and they should, publish the outcome of their scientific research which will surely result in universal agreement that they continue to hunt down whales."
I am not saying that all whaling is completely wrong, I do try to give a fair judgement on this long debated argument; however I do not see what real merit there is slaughtering these animals for scientific research, much better methods could be researched, in my opinion. The impact this has on the environment and ecosystem must be thought about as well, even if this whaling is contributing to scientific research, what damage is it doing to the ecosystem and population of whales? Both sides of the argument have some merit, I mean there could be some scientific research that is worthwhile, but as I have stated before, I think the consequences of whaling way outweigh the merits and thus I think the ban is a worthwhile thing that should be upheld indefinitely if possible.
The article is here if anyone wants to read further/contribute to the debate:
www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/japanese-whaling-halt-antarctic-international-court
In my honest opinion, I believe that whaling should be stopped, I am definitely leaning towards the view of the campaigners even though in all fairness, the article seems to not have any defined slant, it has tried to lay out the facts that have been given without any sentiment shown such as giving both sides of the argument. This is typical of the Guardian and a thing I believe is the right way to go in terms of presenting the hard facts, and allowing users to give their opinion in the comments section. I am trying to justify whaling but even with my limited knowledge on the subject, I cannot. Many may agree and disagree with me on this subject, I would welcome comments on your own personal thoughts and any other statistics found as I have not delved deep enough into the world of whaling to make complete, definitive statements on this.
It was also interesting to read the comments from users below, I have picked out a select few that I thought warranted attention:
"Nine years, 3600 whales slaughtered and only two papers?
You're rubbish at science fellas - go and find another hobby."
Another stated:
"Sure this is progress but sadly, there's a weasel word in the following statement:
The International court of Justice on Monday ordered a temporary halt to Japan's Antarctic whaling programme,
The whale in the room is "temporary".
There was not many opposed to the ruling however one user stated:
"They have been carrying out good work for decade - in the interest of all. They can, and they should, publish the outcome of their scientific research which will surely result in universal agreement that they continue to hunt down whales."
I am not saying that all whaling is completely wrong, I do try to give a fair judgement on this long debated argument; however I do not see what real merit there is slaughtering these animals for scientific research, much better methods could be researched, in my opinion. The impact this has on the environment and ecosystem must be thought about as well, even if this whaling is contributing to scientific research, what damage is it doing to the ecosystem and population of whales? Both sides of the argument have some merit, I mean there could be some scientific research that is worthwhile, but as I have stated before, I think the consequences of whaling way outweigh the merits and thus I think the ban is a worthwhile thing that should be upheld indefinitely if possible.
The article is here if anyone wants to read further/contribute to the debate:
www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/japanese-whaling-halt-antarctic-international-court
Saturday, 29 March 2014
The Road as a quest narrative, with Apocalypic Grail elements
Although this has been discussed in class, I believe more depth needs to be
added to looking at The Road as a quest narrative, I will explain my thoughts
below.
Although there is no final destination in The Road, there is still the journey that is focused on, a hopeless urge to keep on moving down the road, this still is a quest narrative, although they have no clear focus, the journey that progresses through the narrative is still a quest, for survival. In a sense nothing has been fulfilled, but then on the other hand a lot has actually happened throughout the text in a variety of different ways.
The goal does not have to be realistic or defined, in this text it is imaginative to give the quest hope, for instance the father only keeps on living for his son and he is travelling without much to live for, except for his son. I decided to delve further into this still keeping with the strand of the quest and hope. I found a journal online by Lydia Cooper who looks into The Road as an Apocalyptic Grail narrative which links to my theme I am exploring. Interestingly, the novels title in early draft was 'The Grail' and the title illustrative of the narrative arc is where "a dying father embarks on a quest to preserve his son, whom he imagines as a "chalice". This can lead off into many different paths including religion and preservation of humankind, but instead I want to show that this is still ultimately a quest, even if the book can now be looked at through religious terms, it is still the progression of this grail through the narrative. A quest of the boy's journey, although still showing the boys morality, and in the last few pages, his acceptance of the man, women and children and the fact his quest continues. After he leaves his father "he rose and turned and walked back out to the road" (p306), the quest is not over, it continues on the road and thus although with no clear destination, still leaves a sense of something more to be completed and continued.
I would urge you to read more into the child becoming a grail bearer or becoming part of the Holy Grail itself. A key example is when the father is dying; he sees his "son approach, carrying a cup of water with “light all about him.” After he gives the water to his father, the boy leaves and “the light move[s] with him”, it is an interesting reference yet gives greater scope to the text. I had not thought of looking at the boy as a Holy Grail and cup bearer, but thinking further into this, the references are clear and worth further research.
Searching for this on the library resources, you will soon be able to access a copy to read yourself:
L, Cooper. Cormac McCarthy's The Road as Apocalyptic Grail Narrative .2011
Although there is no final destination in The Road, there is still the journey that is focused on, a hopeless urge to keep on moving down the road, this still is a quest narrative, although they have no clear focus, the journey that progresses through the narrative is still a quest, for survival. In a sense nothing has been fulfilled, but then on the other hand a lot has actually happened throughout the text in a variety of different ways.
The goal does not have to be realistic or defined, in this text it is imaginative to give the quest hope, for instance the father only keeps on living for his son and he is travelling without much to live for, except for his son. I decided to delve further into this still keeping with the strand of the quest and hope. I found a journal online by Lydia Cooper who looks into The Road as an Apocalyptic Grail narrative which links to my theme I am exploring. Interestingly, the novels title in early draft was 'The Grail' and the title illustrative of the narrative arc is where "a dying father embarks on a quest to preserve his son, whom he imagines as a "chalice". This can lead off into many different paths including religion and preservation of humankind, but instead I want to show that this is still ultimately a quest, even if the book can now be looked at through religious terms, it is still the progression of this grail through the narrative. A quest of the boy's journey, although still showing the boys morality, and in the last few pages, his acceptance of the man, women and children and the fact his quest continues. After he leaves his father "he rose and turned and walked back out to the road" (p306), the quest is not over, it continues on the road and thus although with no clear destination, still leaves a sense of something more to be completed and continued.
I would urge you to read more into the child becoming a grail bearer or becoming part of the Holy Grail itself. A key example is when the father is dying; he sees his "son approach, carrying a cup of water with “light all about him.” After he gives the water to his father, the boy leaves and “the light move[s] with him”, it is an interesting reference yet gives greater scope to the text. I had not thought of looking at the boy as a Holy Grail and cup bearer, but thinking further into this, the references are clear and worth further research.
Searching for this on the library resources, you will soon be able to access a copy to read yourself:
L, Cooper. Cormac McCarthy's The Road as Apocalyptic Grail Narrative .2011
Wednesday, 26 February 2014
China's Toxic Air Pollution musings
I have decided to look at a recent environmental news story and I thought that since we have read White Noise recently, it would be worthwhile to look at an airborne toxic event in reality.
First it is worthwhile looking at the design, formatting and other effects used to make the article catch the readers eye. Starting straight away with the title "China's toxic air pollution resembles nuclear winter, say scientists", is catching and abrupt, the words toxic, pollution and nuclear winter are designed to shock the audience into reading further, especially combined with the two important words, "say scientists". To have this in the title gives the article a sense of credibility and a further sense of impending danger to wildlife and humankind. This combined with a large image of the Chinese population wearing masks over their faces to protect themselves increases the severity and weight of the article.
A tarlo informed ecopoetic critic approach would be interesting in light of this article, to see the way this could be made into a word pool such as her previous works, as she says herself: "my hope is that this dynamic of paying particular attention and taking responsibility serves as exemplar for engagement with larger issues and strengthens resistance to notions of outside agency" which would work well with this article. To use this approach to make the reader pay attention would be worthwhile, using words such as nuclear and toxic would help exemplify the article and the meanings it is trying to get across to the audience. This approach would also force the reader to think of the issues this raises and look further than the pollution in Beijing to wider issues.
I believe the article is successful in getting across the message of the disaster happening around the city of Beijing but perhaps is not as successful in the scientific viewpoint it seems to heavily try to rely on. For instance the main part of scientific evidence is by growing a group of chilli and tomato seeds under an artificial lab light and then also growing the same amount of seeds in a suburban Beijing greenhouse to show the effect the smog has on photosynthesis. This is a small local experiment that can have many variables yet the article seems to reside on this as complete evidence that the smog is affecting the wildlife and plants of the city as well as humans. Also interestingly the lexis has now changed from the title saying it resembles a nuclear winter to the phrase "somewhat similar to a nuclear winter", this is very different from the title and the use of the word 'somewhat' is very telling. I do agree there is a clear problem here, the smog is indeed affecting wildlife and the cities inhabitants but the way this article is written is interesting, it varies from viewpoint to viewpoint and is ultimately trying to enhance the problem to get more media attention upon it.
I am not saying that the article will successfully manage to counter the problem, it is identifying something needs to be done and the effect this smog has on the city, that it does well, in my opinion more research and more coverage is necessary before definitive viewpoints are made.
This is the link to the article for those who are interested:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/25/china-toxic-air-pollution-nuclear-winter-scientists
First it is worthwhile looking at the design, formatting and other effects used to make the article catch the readers eye. Starting straight away with the title "China's toxic air pollution resembles nuclear winter, say scientists", is catching and abrupt, the words toxic, pollution and nuclear winter are designed to shock the audience into reading further, especially combined with the two important words, "say scientists". To have this in the title gives the article a sense of credibility and a further sense of impending danger to wildlife and humankind. This combined with a large image of the Chinese population wearing masks over their faces to protect themselves increases the severity and weight of the article.
A tarlo informed ecopoetic critic approach would be interesting in light of this article, to see the way this could be made into a word pool such as her previous works, as she says herself: "my hope is that this dynamic of paying particular attention and taking responsibility serves as exemplar for engagement with larger issues and strengthens resistance to notions of outside agency" which would work well with this article. To use this approach to make the reader pay attention would be worthwhile, using words such as nuclear and toxic would help exemplify the article and the meanings it is trying to get across to the audience. This approach would also force the reader to think of the issues this raises and look further than the pollution in Beijing to wider issues.
I believe the article is successful in getting across the message of the disaster happening around the city of Beijing but perhaps is not as successful in the scientific viewpoint it seems to heavily try to rely on. For instance the main part of scientific evidence is by growing a group of chilli and tomato seeds under an artificial lab light and then also growing the same amount of seeds in a suburban Beijing greenhouse to show the effect the smog has on photosynthesis. This is a small local experiment that can have many variables yet the article seems to reside on this as complete evidence that the smog is affecting the wildlife and plants of the city as well as humans. Also interestingly the lexis has now changed from the title saying it resembles a nuclear winter to the phrase "somewhat similar to a nuclear winter", this is very different from the title and the use of the word 'somewhat' is very telling. I do agree there is a clear problem here, the smog is indeed affecting wildlife and the cities inhabitants but the way this article is written is interesting, it varies from viewpoint to viewpoint and is ultimately trying to enhance the problem to get more media attention upon it.
I am not saying that the article will successfully manage to counter the problem, it is identifying something needs to be done and the effect this smog has on the city, that it does well, in my opinion more research and more coverage is necessary before definitive viewpoints are made.
This is the link to the article for those who are interested:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/25/china-toxic-air-pollution-nuclear-winter-scientists
Thursday, 5 December 2013
The waste not want not mentality
I have decided to look into the food people waste at home for my blog post this week, it is an important issue to share a few thoughts on and have a look at the actual amount the UK wastes each year. I found a Guardian article (link shared at the bottom of the blog) from last month, which is interesting as it highlights just how much we as a country waste each year, which is 4.2million tonnes of edible food. Just think about that sheer amount for a moment, thats a ridiculously large figure, especially if you think that all goes straight into the bin. According to the statistics published by the UK's Waste Resources Action Programme (Wrap) , they have found that "every year British people buy 7 million tonnes more food and drink than they consume. More than half of this food is edible at the time of its disposal", this is a crazy statistic, 50% of the food British people throw away is still edible. One must surely then think about the idea of use by dates and the waste this causes, perhaps people need to not religiously follow the use by dates to the day, and use common sense and judgement before stating if the food has gone off and must be binned.
Giving a first hand view of this waste is my housemate, who I shall not name and shame online, but he is absolutely horrific at waste. Yesterday I caught him about to chuck out a block of cheese, and I mean a block, when I questioned him his response was "oh the packet said use it within 4 days, its the 5th day so I guess I should chuck it?" Pure obscenity! That is beyond belief, cheese will not go off for weeks, just keep it in the packet and it will be totally fine, yet after the stated 4 days he was ready to throw it out in the midst of all the other waste that perhaps, shouldn't be waste at all.
This leads me onto the thought of the waste mentality shared by many across the country, people seem to worry that as soon as the item is past its use by date it automatically gains the title 'waste' or 'hazardous' in a sense, which really should not be the mentality to have when thinking about the environment and having a sliver of common sense. An interesting fact that the article uncovered was that "the top three foods that Britons are throwing away uneaten include every day essentials: bread, potatoes and milk", potatos can last for weeks and weeks after their use by date and bread can last much longer if left in the fridge. People just have that mentality that after the date passes, it becomes useless to them. Milk is the only one I agree with, any longer than a day or two after the use by date and I wouldn't touch it either.
The impact on the environment from this waste of course is not good, more waste means more and more rubbish is filling landfills across the country also the production process of creating all this food, the plastic packaging and transportation just to be thrown away into a landfill raises obvious issues, it is down to the consumer though to not buy too much such as buy one get one free offers, but also for the supermarket chains to cut down on the plastic packaging the food. I do realise this has been a long debate and a large issue that has been in the press for a multitude of years but still this new research and statistics released are some cause of alarm, the sheer waste that has now been defined in a number is just staggering. We have the power to change this, we just need to change our mentality on the use by date idea, and to use common sense when throwing food away.
Link to article for additional information:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/07/why-waste-food-home
Giving a first hand view of this waste is my housemate, who I shall not name and shame online, but he is absolutely horrific at waste. Yesterday I caught him about to chuck out a block of cheese, and I mean a block, when I questioned him his response was "oh the packet said use it within 4 days, its the 5th day so I guess I should chuck it?" Pure obscenity! That is beyond belief, cheese will not go off for weeks, just keep it in the packet and it will be totally fine, yet after the stated 4 days he was ready to throw it out in the midst of all the other waste that perhaps, shouldn't be waste at all.
This leads me onto the thought of the waste mentality shared by many across the country, people seem to worry that as soon as the item is past its use by date it automatically gains the title 'waste' or 'hazardous' in a sense, which really should not be the mentality to have when thinking about the environment and having a sliver of common sense. An interesting fact that the article uncovered was that "the top three foods that Britons are throwing away uneaten include every day essentials: bread, potatoes and milk", potatos can last for weeks and weeks after their use by date and bread can last much longer if left in the fridge. People just have that mentality that after the date passes, it becomes useless to them. Milk is the only one I agree with, any longer than a day or two after the use by date and I wouldn't touch it either.
The impact on the environment from this waste of course is not good, more waste means more and more rubbish is filling landfills across the country also the production process of creating all this food, the plastic packaging and transportation just to be thrown away into a landfill raises obvious issues, it is down to the consumer though to not buy too much such as buy one get one free offers, but also for the supermarket chains to cut down on the plastic packaging the food. I do realise this has been a long debate and a large issue that has been in the press for a multitude of years but still this new research and statistics released are some cause of alarm, the sheer waste that has now been defined in a number is just staggering. We have the power to change this, we just need to change our mentality on the use by date idea, and to use common sense when throwing food away.
Link to article for additional information:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/07/why-waste-food-home
Wednesday, 6 November 2013
Blog Post 1
Strong statement of my own
opinion on Strands:
Strands is a book which has influenced a
lot of my opinions on nature writing and has helped me to reflect on the
seemingly insignificant things and learn to describe them in detail with reference
to wider implications such as the impact certain things have when Sprackland
describes what she has found on the beach. In my opinion the book was well
presented, sectioned off into clear sections such as winter and summer, which
notified the reader of these seasonal changes and also showed the passing of
time throughout the year through the months. Also it enhanced my thoughts on
the use of 1st person in nature writing, Sprackland uses it for her
own opinions but this is not forced upon the reader, I thought it was subtly
used in a sense, she talks forcefully about the damage that has been done by
the tobacco dumping at a particular beach in the book but it is not designed to
make the reader hate the previous generation that did the damage. Although it
is clear that there is ecological damage to the environment and the tobacco
waste that was meant to reinforce the cliffs actually did the complete opposite
her opinion almost verges on the fact that it has happened in history and this
is the result. It is more descriptive and less layered with forceful opinion, which
is what I took from the novel as a whole. This writing is what I most enjoy to
read. It is provocative, making me (the reader) think actively about what is
being described and the implications but also entwined with the authors own
opinions that I can actively reject her opinions if I so wish.
I thought Strands
overall, was a superb piece of writing. The description of seemingly
insignificant objects gave way to Spracklands further thoughts on issues such as
the impact on the beach and also into well researched information and sections
of poems which were relevant to the subject she was speaking about. This really
helped combine the story together and provoke further thoughts into the life of
a plastic bottle, for instance. To think about its journey across vast oceans
and the distance it has had to travel to arrive on this very beach really
opened my eyes in a metaphorical sense to the story entwined with the inanimate
object. This book really struck a chord with my thoughts and made me, for one
of the first times; really consider the variety of objects that wash up on the
beach. For that alone, anything that enhances my knowledge and makes me think
deeper about not just the beach but history and the world, is something that I
really enjoy from a book. In my opinion Strands
is a well researched and narrated book that makes you look again at the
inanimate in life, in this case, on the beach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)