Loading reviewsâŠ
Very informative
This user gave this course a rating of 5/5 stars
Fairly easy to navigate
While not really relevant to our situation, it was thought-provoking, though slightly inclined to overegg the pudding. Could all be summed up in 'keep an open mind'.
waste of time (for me)
This course as not really relevant for me
Waste of time
Although this is an excellent course for those with no OH&S training, as a qualified (Level 4) manager of health and safety this course was a waste of time for me.
Excellent
Very comprehensive with all the content explained in a clear and concise manner.
pointless for me
Although this course would be great for a new starter or an inexperience driver, as an advanced and experienced driver, this course was a waste of time
Easy to follow.
Well presented in a clear and easy followable format, allowing you to be able to move back through to listen to parts again if needed.
I love you
This user gave this course a rating of 5/5 stars
surprisingly interesting
This is a complex but important subject, one I know I need to know about. This course broke it down into manageable chunks, and made it interesting and memorable. I'm now confident that I have knowledge of the subject and also know where to find information if I have questions.
Unqualified, manipulative,
Slide Qualifying statements 7:30 Methane statement. Use of images showing livestock and blaming same for methane emissions when in fact, âMethane comes from both natural sources and human activities. An estimated 60% of todayâs methane emissions are the result of human activities. The largest sources of methane are agriculture, fossil fuels, and decomposition of landfill waste. Natural processes account for 40% of methane emissions, with wetlands being the largest natural source.â https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/#:~:text=Methane%20comes%20from%20both%20natural,and%20decomposition%20of%20landfill%20waste. 7:30 Statement on irrigation, misleading, figures for worldwide usage quoted,, not OECD. https://www.oecd.org/agriculture/topics/water-and-agriculture/ 8:30 The statement made in the video, where it is claimed that an individual throws away their own body weight in waste every 7 weeks is unqualified. The source I found (there were many and varied) and quoted below says: âThis means that the average person in the UK throws away around 400kg of waste each year; 7 times their body weight.â https://www.recyclingbins.co.uk/recycling-facts/#:~:text=This%20means%20that%20the%20average,average%20recycling%20rate%20of%2045%25. 12:30 Legislation mentioned but no specific legislation given or stated. Unqualified Relevant legislation 1990 EPA https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents Post Brexit, Notwithstanding of the 1990 EPA, the 2021 Environment Act https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/30/contents/enacted has become law. 13:30 talks about Environmental Protection Act and duty of care yet the 1990 or 2021 acts are NEVER mentioned. The statement of a ratio of 6 tonnes business waste to 1 tonne domestic waste is suspect because it is not qualified. It may well be true, but it an unqualified statement. 14:30 â1 litre of oil can pollute 1 million litres of drinking waterâ. Whilst this may well be true, it could be, after some research it is found that this is only supposition. Should supposition be used to qualify the obvious statement of âDonât dispose of oil in water coursesâ? 15:30 Statement that the âenergy saved from recycling 1 glass bottle is enough to power a light bulb for 4 hoursâ remains unqualified. What type of âbulbâ? wattage? Filament type? This is why qualifying a statement is so vital. As for net zero carbon offsetting, this hypocrisy is staggering and the absolute lack of qualifying sources is, for this training event, staggering. 19:30 5 million trees. Yes, probably and a lot more besides, however, the statement is unqualified when it could be, so easily, https://greenplan-it.co.uk/recycling-in-the-uk-did-you-know/ 20:30 âWe did some researchâ. Did you? Well thatâs good but other than to justify your statements, there is no evidence to show you actually did! 23:30 The âplastic bagâ myth. You quote the often misunderstood 15 minute working life of a plastic bag statement and take it completely out of context, in terms of actual reality that is. For example one UK average daily car journey = 10kg of CO2SO (1Ă30 mile trip) equals 3 years of average household plastic bag impacts. https://www.cromwellpolythene.co.uk/app/uploads/2019/06/Fast-Facts.pdf The Cromwell website also makes sense of carbon use too.. They have vested interest but quote government figures. At least they qualify their statements. 28:30 The course begins to preach about reducing meat and dairy intake. This is patronising and insulting. People can make their own choices. 29:30 Suspect, no qualification 30:30 Suspect, no qualification Questions: Q6: âThe butterfly effectâ Not questioning the validity of this but no reference given, unqualified statement. Q12: Erroneous question and answer Q13: Erroneous question and answer Summary: This course is meant to be about business and the environment which takes into account the personal responsibilities of both individual and corporate entities. The course evidently fails to achieve its given and implied aim. On the whole, the course comes across as patronising. It is a dreadful example of bitesize social media style manipulation without any basis in given fact. It could be aimed at those who read the âsunâ newspaper, and probably is. It combines sweeping statements with manipulative imaging to deliver an environmental message which has an agenda. The course does not qualify any claims made, nor does it refer to the two major pieces of legislation used to govern the environment, pre and post Brexit. There is no mention of the 1990 EPA, nor of the 2021 Environment Act. There are lectures on how we should eat, recycle, there are statements about plastic bags, there are unfounded statements of 50 million barrels of oil used to transport goods around the planet. If youâre going to present your statements as fact, at least have the professionalism to qualify properly. Any statements have to be made in their proper context, for example, the methane imaging (slide 7:30) and plastic bags (slide 23:30). both use a combination of words and image to direct particular lines of though to conclusion. Both of those statements on both slides are factually incorrect and manipulative. Stop it!