Preston kids made in to nature lovers

Who says you can’t learn during the holidays? This half-term holiday The Environment Education Centre in Penwortham is trying to make Preston kids “nature lovers”, as Su Buck of the Education Centre states.

There are multiple activities and theme related days. The ‘eco-days’ this year are all about Vikings. Children will learn about ancient woods and taught how real Vikings lived. Seems like a good way of spending the holiday, but how does this help the kids being more green?

”The idea of the eco-days is to provide outdoor learning and fun to as many children as possible. Our aim is to enable, facilitate and hopefully inspire children to look after the natural world”, says Buck.

That’s still only being outside and playing. But don’t they have to learn about environmental stuff like recycling, the importance of nature and sustainability? Buck thinks not.

”We don’t preach or even try to teach something like ‘this is the name of’, but rather allow the children to become nature lovers by having a great time outdoors and learning to respect the nature threw play.”

From feedback the centre got from parents and schools they understand that very little children have the opportunity to play and learn outdoors. A question that pops to mind after this statement could be: isn’t it quite useless to give these children a nature holiday once, instead of trying to change their ‘not going outside’ habit over a long period of time?

Buck explains: “This isn’t a one time thing, we always try the do this kind of stuff. But for us it’s hard to intervene in the life of the children. Schools for example have a job to do their, of which I know they are conscious and working on.”

Tell me what do you think. Are these activities of any use? Do schools need to do more and what? And what would YOU like to ask to the one you think should to more about kids turning green?

A few days ago I wrote something about the credit crunch being good for the environment. You can find a lot of people on the internet who will agree with me. On twitter Pam McAllister contacted me and she didn’t agree. She wrote her own blog from a whole different angle.

After reading her blog, I realised maybe my opinion wasn’t the whole truth. She made a very good point.

“The idea that a recession is good for the environment reinforces the idea that there are two conflicting goals. Economic activity and the well-being and prosperity of people, and a healthy planet.”

And than it hit me. She’s probably right. We shouldn’t see both things as separate goals that don’t go together. We should be able to achieve both at the same time, or at least try to. Or as McAllister says:

“Take the life-affirming stance that human prosperity and a healthy planet are linked together. Value both, rather than setting them in opposition. That’s attractive.”

I say: Amen.

Informing airplain passengers about environment, a job for the industry or the government?

The travel industry should do more to inform consumers about the environmental consequences of tourism. That’s what Prince Charles was urging earlier this month. Why? Because they are to blame for all the carbon emission? What about other organisations that benefit from those passengers? Like goverments, counties or even the UK as a whole.

Airports are a big injection in the local and regional economy. For example we take Manchester Airport, there are about 19,000 people working there. The Manchester Airports Group in total gives a 3.2 billion boost to the UK. And an airport like Heathrow even offers jobs to 100.000 of people all over the UK.

And let’s also not forget about the millions of passengers each year that flow into the airport city’s. Buying food, drinks, souvenirs and catching a train or a bus to a further destination. All this makes a city very popular for business and transport, which will eventually produce a certain amount of profit for the government.

So Charles, think before you point. And if anyone would like to pursued me into another opinion? be my guest :)

The environment: benefitter of the credit crunch

Some people on twitter think the financial crisis is good for the environment. People stop getting on planes to often and stop buying expensive stuff - like cars - that are bad for the environment. But is so much true? That's what I wondered.

Well not entirely. Ryanair frontman Michael O'Leary even said the credit crunch was good for business. Also Easyjet appear to have no problems with the recession. But maybe that's just because those are cheap airlines? Over all the UK seems to deal with less people using the airports.

Ok, so the passenger numbers are falling, is there not anything else? Like people not willing to spend more money on 'green' stuff? Well actually not. People tend to not buy ready meals anymore, they are all going for real cooking at the moment. And that means less carbon emission.

Also Michael Sturges, operations director at Edge, a packaging consultancy, thinks the credit crunch eventually can give a positive swing to sustainability and peoples consciousness about the environment. "People are going to be more discerning about consumerism and waste", he says.

So can the environment benefit from the credit crunch? Possibly. The question is: what do YOU think? You are the person acting and possibly being more, or less, environmental conscious.