Environmental Awareness Training, Page 17 Reviews

I paused course on slide 16 to return to work duties, once I resumed course it had went back to slide 6. Bizarre

I am very keen on looking after the environment but could have been more concise in it's message. It seemed to go over the same issues again and again.

This course covers a lot of basic content, such as reducing waste and lowering emissions both on a company and local level. However, nothing was mentioned about the impact of animal agriculture as being the leading cause of climate change. A plant based diet was not promoted at all which was disappointing.

This could have been short

Slightly to condescending

General message is sound, but contains some misleading statements that could influence a readers decisions.

It is not the role of the employer to do this, and there are eminent scientists that would disagree with some of the evidence stated within the module. Paying to off set your carbon footprint is immoral and unethical and should not be included - it is bad practice.

Some mistakes: climate change doesn't cause tsunamis (not in transcript but in video); legislation is different in Scotland so does depend on local council. Not clear what the objective is with a mixture covering general awareness and more legal aspects. Too long, with some of the additional information it took well over an hour. Some of the questions not much use - how many trees provide oxygen for 2 people? Interesting but not a fact I need to know to pass a test. How big are the trees? Temperate or tropical? Course has potential, but not there yet

The term "Butterfly Effect" was repeatedly misused to cover any situation where making a small contribution would, if followed by the many, have a powerful effect. This is not what the term means nor where it originated. I found the incorrect usage of a real scientific principle distracting and fear that it is the type of unscientific simplification that gives ammunition to climate change deniers. Has the script been properly fact checked by a climate specialist??

Too simplistic. Would have preferred more detail, such as science and, or legislation.