Environmental Awareness Training, Page 7 Reviews

Good course but seemed too long and repetitive at times

good but too long should be in 20 min videos max

Farming facts where wildly out.

Environmental course doe not need to be as long

Without limiting the earths populations all recycling, reusing etc will only delay the inevitable outcome.

Useful info but inaccuracy and politics seeping in due to over simplification and sweeping statements.Some statements were factually untrue because of the sweeping nature of the statement; for example the correct test question asking what is causing climate change being global warming is untrue, which was also previously alluded to as being wholly due to humans, when there are several contributing factors include both natural and human activity. Making sweeping inaccurate statements like that make it much more difficult to convince people to be environmentally friendly as they think your lying and taking them for a ride.Political messaging; Explicitly promotes vegetarian and vegan lifestyles (this can leave you legally liable) which is scientifically provable as unhealthy/detrimental for a omnivore evolved species like humans. It talks about wholly giving up meat and diary as a alluded cure assist for climate change/environmental destruction due to methane. The role of methane emitted from cattle for example is carbon neutral which while being 25x more potent that of C02 lasts only up to 12 years instead of potentially century's (most broken down in months) breaking down into C02 in the environment to be reabsorbed by plants and eaten again by the cattle. What matters is if the emissions are within the capacity of the carbon cycle to maintain a relativistic climate, being always changing naturally; i.e. within a stable/sustainable and livable range. You also overlook the role livestock farming plays in managing and sustaining certain habitats, while there could certainly more biodiversity in fields used for grazing, making sweeping inaccurate statements does more harm that good in the end. Again for example, statements on over grazing yet failing to mention good farmers rotate the animals between fields.Some statements like that pertaining to nitrogen can give the impression its wholly detrimental, more discussion emphasis on balance is needed.No mention of important environmental factors such as breaking up of habitats with roads and fences, impacts of cats (i.e stick a bell on them) and invasive species.Also I got a doom mongering vibe from it at times, you don't won't to do that so much without providing examples of reversals and things getting better straight after.

Don’t like the vegan proper Ganda as its nit accurate

Despite the whole of the UK doing everything perfect, the world will still be screwed as we're a drop in the ocean which is China and USA. Rich people don't appear to reduce, re-use, recycle, it seems to be a poor people problem. We're barely keeping our head above the fiscal waters, with food, bills and energy costs yet we're expected to give money to charity? What money? We have none. Where are the multi-millionaires with their donations? Why is always those with nothing that are expected to fork out to fix the problems caused by the rich?

I thought this e-learning had some good information and points.Although I feel it was pushing an ideology.

Some of the questions are a bit dodgy, such as 17 trees will provide enough oxygen for 2 people for a year, or for 6 months - surely it depends how long the tree is growing for? So it should just be that 17 trees provide enough oxygen for 2 people...