Environmental Awareness Training Reviews

This should be completed by everyone within Swift to promote reducing our carbon footprint and support the global fight with global warming.

Not appropriate in a corporate environment. Too politically/ideologically aligned and not respectful of individual viewpoints. Treats contested views as factual statements and activism based. Would not recommend this module and have responded with expected answers rather than actual facts to complete course.

The course is great in reminding us all of the small changes that we can make better environmental decisions.

This user gave this course a rating of 5/5 stars

This user gave this course a rating of 5/5 stars

This user gave this course a rating of 2/5 stars

Slide Qualifying statements 7:30 Methane statement. Use of images showing livestock and blaming same for methane emissions when in fact, “Methane comes from both natural sources and human activities. An estimated 60% of today’s 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.” 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: “This means that the average person in the UK throws away around 400kg of waste each year; 7 times their body weight.” 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 “1 litre of oil can pollute 1 million litres of drinking water”. 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 ‘Don’t dispose of oil in water courses’? 15:30 Statement that the “energy saved from recycling 1 glass bottle is enough to power a light bulb for 4 hours” remains unqualified. What type of ‘bulb’? 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 “We did some research”. Did you? Well that’s good but other than to justify your statements, there is no evidence to show you actually did! 23:30 The ‘plastic bag’ 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 (1×30 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: “The butterfly effect” 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 ‘sun’ 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 you’re 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!