Class 8: 12/3-19/3 MAG2 Alternative Forms of Tourism

Introduction

-       Tourism is a booming industry that is a large source of income for many countries.

-       Every year millions of people travel to new destinations.

-       Typical tourist vacations are often for relaxation or leisure, but today new forms of tourism are becoming increasingly popular.

Problems with Traditional Tourism

Economic Effects

-          Financial burden falls on the local communities.  This burden is to build and maintain a tourism industry.

-          Local housing becomes expensive with the increased demand for tourism properties such as hotels.

-          Often times there is an increase in the price of local goods because the stores know that tourists will pay more.

-          Risk of encroachment of offshore corporations who cater to rich tourists and will bring the biggest profits out of the country.

Environmental Effects

-          Damage to the landscape such as pollution, erosion and fire sometimes completely destroying ecosystems.

-          Traffic congestion and pollution and higher CO2 emissions.

-          Loss of virgin landscape that is unprotected from development.

Cultural Effects

-          Extremely at risk because of the tourism industry.

-          Cultural identity and practices become a tourist attraction and are often exploited.

-          Traditional communities are thrust into the modern world and risk losing their traditional culture.

Social Effects

-          Local needs are forgotten such as in grocery stores, products used by locals are replaced with products used by tourists.

-          Seasonal jobs that are not well paid with long hours. 

-          Locals can feel as though they are on display and are a caricature of who they really are.

-          Families become dependent on the tourist economy and must work long hours limiting their participation in local traditions and cultural ceremonies.

Political Effects

-          Extreme differences in wealth and lifestyle can create tension between locals and tourists.

-          Hawaii is an example of this, the locals often have problems with the tourists and violence does occur. 

http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/learningabout/ourchallenges/tourism/impactsoftourism.htm

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5244298_positive-negative-effects-tourism.html

Positive Effects of Tourism

Tourism is not all bad, in fact if done correctly it can be a beneficial and productive practice that gives back to local cultures and people.

-          Jobs for local people.

-          Income for local economies.

-          Increased demand for local food and crafts.

-          Promote cultural awareness therefore preserving local traditions and culture.

-          Income from tourism could go towards preserving infrastructure.

-          Could inspire a desire to protect natural features and the environment.

Ecotourism and Sustainable Tourism

-          Definition

§         Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people. (TIES) The International Ecotourism Society 1990

-          Uniting conservation, communities and sustainable travel.

-          Based on a desire to minimize the impact of tourism on an area.

-          Goals to promote cultural and environmental awareness.

 How?

-          Minimize impact.

-          Build environmental and cultural awareness and respect.

-          Provide direct financial benefits for conservation and for the empowerment of local people.

-          Raise sensibility to the host country’s culture and political climate. 

Alternative Vacations

-          Spend your “vacation” helping others.

-          Giving back to local communities.

-          Providing relief to disaster stricken areas.

-          Volunteering to as “vacation.”

Trekking

-          A journey on foot where other forms of transportation are not available. 

-          Goal is to explore and leave as little trace as possible. 

-          Get away from typical forms of travelling.

WWOOFING

-          World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms

-          In return for volunteer help on a farm, the owners provide food and lodging during the stay.

-          Opportunities all over the world.

-          Focused on spreading knowledge and promoting the idea of organic farms in an ever increasing GMO society. 

CouchSurfing

-            Opportunities to stay for free in countries all over the world and to share cultures.

-            93,000+ couchsurfers in 207 countries.

§              France is the rated 3rd in number of couchsurfers after the US and Germany. 

-            “Couch surfing isn't just a means of accommodation; it is an entirely new way to travel. You get to see the world through local residents, not hotel concierges or guidebooks. But what is most profound about the whole experience is the trust that naturally exists.”

                                                                                                   -Time Magazine

Articles for Discussion:

1. What tourism problem is presented?
2. What solutions are given?
3. Are there any positive impacts?
4. What does your group think about this article?

Ecotourism: Ethical Operation or Cultural Exploitation?

By Kylie Schultz

WEDNESDAY JANUARY 02, 2013

The myth and reality of ecotourism

In her paper on ecotourism, New Zealand scholar Regina Scheyvens explains “ecotourism has been defined as ‘environmentally responsible, enlightening travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features both past and present) that promotes conservation…and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations.’” To Scheyvens, it is important to remember that ecotourism is also an industry: “When business is the main driving force behind 
ecotourism it is not surprising that the ventures which emerge may serve to alienate, rather than benefit, local communities.”

The promise of economic stability prompts many local communities to pursue ecotourism as a means of self-reliance, but it is often outside companies or governments who reap the benefits of such endeavors. In some cases profits are split unevenly between companies and communities, local workers receive unfair wages, and outside products and services provided by companies hinder local economic growth. Scheyvens adds that “even where ecotourism results in economic benefits for a local community, it may result in damage to social and cultural systems, thus undermining people’s overall quality of life.”

The demand for “authentic” cultural experiences can often be injurious to communities when their cultures are marketed as products for consumption. In their book Ethnicity, Inc., John L. and Jean Comaroff discuss the consequences when culture is capitalized. Once the cultural practices of a community are commodified, so is its identity: “The alienation of indigenous practices, even of the deepest knowledge, is…simultaneously a means of self-construction and a source of material sustenance. Cultural survival…has given way, in many places, to survival through culture,” note the Comaroffs. Additionally, communities are often removed or 
resettled from their native lands in the creation of nature preserves or wildlife parks, restricting their access to the resources necessary to their livelihood and ensuring dependence upon their commodified culture and ecotour companies.

Ecotourism touts preservation of culture, but often this"preservation" is in fact exploitative and only exacerbates existing socio-political or economic instabilities. Outside companies may pair up with local communities to help manage and contribute to an endeavor, but the communities do not always receive fair shares of the profits, or the profits are circumvented by local or national governments. There are however many ecotour operations which work closely with or are co-managed by native communities which do enhance and promote the well-being of locals. The difference lies in how the operation represents and interacts with the local community as a whole.

Does the National Park Service Need a Quota System for Peak Seasons?

By Bob Janiskee on February 19, 2008 edited for use

It’s conceivable that the National Park Service might eventually have to take drastic measures to reduce peak-season crowding in our most popular national parks. Overcrowding and overuse lead to congested roads and trails, excessive air pollution, accelerated erosion, and many other problems that reduce recreational pleasure and damage park resources. Anyone who visits Grand Canyon, Yosemite, or Yellowstone during the peak season knows that crowding can make a park visit stressful and inconvenient.

The Park Service is already using a variety of strategies and tactics to discourage overcrowding and overuse. But urging people to choose less popular parks and less busy times of year doesn’t do much good, and might actually create new crowding problems. At root, nearly all of the methods that actually work are forms of rationing. For many years now the Park Service and concessionaires have been using first-come, first-served (queuing and reservation) systems, lotteries, and price increases to regulate access to parks, campsites, backcountry trails, whitewater rivers, and other park facilities and activities.

There have even been some attempts to ration by merit or competency, as in screening for the issuing of climbing and mountaineering permits. But what if all of these measures are not enough? What if problems related to overcrowding and overuse in certain heavily used parks become overwhelming?

In the worst case scenario, the Park Service might have to adopt truly draconian measures. Some observers believe that it is only a matter of time before we see strict entrance and recreational facility quotas employed. A few have suggested that access to national parks and their recreational facilities might best be regulated by a national lottery, and that a “white market” for park permits should be allowed to flourish.

Here is how it would work. The Park Service would use the best available scientific methods to determine the recreational carrying capacity, acceptable limits of change, and other limiting factors in parks that experience serious overcrowding and related facilities overuse during peak seasons. The key question is how much access and use can be permitted without seriously reducing recreational quality or causing unacceptable damage to physical and cultural resources in the parks.

The agency would then set peak-period quotas for admission and recreational facilities use at the “problem parks.” Each quota would express the maximum number of permits to be issued for visiting a particular park and engaging in specified recreational activities during a specified period of time. The quotas would be partially filled through allocations to tour operators, park concessionaires, various other commercial recreation providers, and presumably some national NGOs. The remaining permits would be allocated to the public via lottery.

 

The ethics of disaster tourism: What is the right thing to do?

February 22, 2012|By Catharine M. Hamm | Los Angeles Times Travel editor

All of which raises this question: Is it love or is it lewd to visit a place after a disaster?

After a recent story in the Travel section reported that some residents of Joplin were angered by a map showing where a tornado devastated the southwestern Missouri town last spring, we asked ethicists about tourism  in the aftermath of tragedy.

Wanting to see a place where disaster has struck is not always a sign of insensitivity, said Patricia Illingworth, an ethics professor at Northeastern University, a lawyer and a lecturer in law at Northeastern University School of Law and author of “Us Before Me, Ethics and Social Capital for Global Well Being.”

“I think that there’s a lot of benefit from going,” she said of seeing the aftermath, adding that “gawking … obviously isn’t a good idea.” But, she added, “going and seeing what the people are suffering or seeing the situation, that then raises empathy or allows us to empathize” with the situation, she said.

Fundraisers, for instance, often have at their core human suffering, she noted. And you know those ads featuring emaciated children? Calling this the “pornography of poverty,” Illingworth noted that such images stimulate empathy, which often results in action.

But some may object. “Some local residents may find it embarrassing or offensive for outsiders to ooh and ahh and take pictures of a broken community," said Dr. Tanvir Hussain, a Los Angeles cardiologist and adjunct professor of bioethics at Pepperdine University School of Law. "On the other hand, local businesses [that] thrive off of visitors, such as restaurants and hotels, may welcome outsiders at a time when little business from locals is to be had.”

The issue of disaster tourism isn’t new. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, companies began offering tours of areas that were especially hard hit after the storm and the levee failures. After the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, photos showed tourists sunbathing on Asian beaches while cleanup continued in the background. More than 200,000 people were killed in that calamity, many ripped from the arms of loved ones and swept to their deaths. Some thought the sunbathers insensitive.

Travel, at its core, is supposed to broaden our experience and make us think beyond our own horizons. A visit to a place of barbarism that once may have been unthinkable can now provide a painful but important lesson.

Yet those whose lives are touched by misfortune, although none on the scale of the Holocaust, may object to becoming unintended teachers.

TOURISM BOYCOTTS: HELPFUL OR HARMFUL?

By David Piepers

May 8, 2013

Edited for use

AS we make our way around the globe as tourists, honeymooners, researchers and such, most people probably don’t consider the implications of choosing to visit one place over another. Many people probably aren’t aware of the conditions of poverty and deprivation faced by the civilians of the place they stay, choosing to stick to the primary tourist spots.

But if you knew that a nation was abusing the rights of its people, would it affect your decision to stay there? Have tourism boycotts worked in the past? Or do they hurt more than help that nation’s inhabitants?

A good place to start would be the case of Burma/Myanmar. In the 90s, the junta in control put tourism high on the agenda for the developing country, only to have the nation shunned by the international community because of the human rights violations surrounding tourism infrastructure projects. The calls weren’t just originating from the outside, with pro-democracy opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi joining the campaign.

All this has changed since elections in 2011 though, as the pro-democracy party decided it was time to encourage ‘responsible’ tourism, with a focus on making sure tourists are keen to promote both social and environmental welfare. How well they can enforce such an idea is yet to be seen, with tourism numbers starting to gradually rise again over the last 2 years. That being said, there is still minimal regulation.

Another nation experiencing similar issues, albeit with a much better advertised tyranny, is Zimbabwe. Poor socio-economic conditions have engulfed the nation’s people for years, and significant drops in tourism and the refusal of many major airlines to fly there have resulted in income and job losses, with companies unable to pay wages. Even the cricket World Cup, held in Africa, spurred calls for a boycott of all matches in Zimbabwe, and England and New Zealand didn’t play their scheduled matches.

With the international reputation synonymous with Mugabe, and the damage that has been done to the Zimbabwean tourism industry in the last 13 years, it boggles the mind why the UN would then go on to appoint Mugabe a ‘leader for tourism’, despite his well-advertised reputation.

What do you think?

Does boycotting tourism to nations such as these have the potential to make a difference? Could it be doing more harm than good to the economies and employment prospects of these nations? Is international pressure the only way to affect change in dictatorships? Did you even know about the problems existing in countries like these? Is tourism money really going to help the people? Or will it instead be used to help entrench the power of the political elites?

 

English Conversation Group 4 The Death Penalty

"Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... ($232.7 million per year) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million)."

--California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, July 1, 2008

The death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state.
It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the right to be free from cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.  Over two-thirds of the countries in the world – 139 – have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice.  In the U.S., 16 states have put an end to state-sanctioned killing.
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender.

• A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000). 

           December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit)

• ·         In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
  (2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research)
• ·         In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case.
  (Urban Institute, The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland, March 2008)
• ·         In California the current sytem costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.
  (California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice, July 2008

  The United States Supreme Court, though, has placed two major restrictions on the use of the death penalty. First, the Supreme Court case of Atkins v. Virginia, decided June 20, 2002,held that executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Generally, a person with an IQ below 70 is considered to be mentally retarded. Prior to this decision, between 1984 and 2002 forty-four mentally retarded inmates were executed.

Cases:

Teresa Lewis: A woman on death row (2010)

The first woman to die by lethal injection in the state of Virginia, Teresa Lewis was convicted of paying to have her husband and stepson murdered in 2002. Her case drew outcry, because testing had pegged Lewis' IQ at 72, just two points above that classified as intellectually disabled. Lewis' attorneys advised her to plead guilty in hopes of leniency, but she instead received the death penalty. The two hitmen who killed her husband and stepson received life sentences.

Her supporters, among them legal novelist John Grisham, sent thousands of appeals for clemency to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, to no avail. Lewis was executed on Sept. 23, 2010.

The juvenile

Napoleon Beazley was 17 in April 1994 when he killed a 63-year-old businessman called John Luttig in an attempt to steal a car. He was convicted and sentenced to death aged 25.
By the time his execution was scheduled, there was fierce debate in America about the morality of executing juveniles, and the US supreme court had already indicated its intention to review the law. On the day of Beazley's death – 28 May 2002 – the state of Missouri decided to postpone the execution of another 17-year-old murderer, Christopher Simmons, arguing that there should be caution shown while waiting for the supreme court to make clear its views.
Texas, on the other hand, showed no such concern, and went ahead with putting Beazley to death despite the protestations of lawyers and human rights groups. In March 2005, the supreme court ruled – based on that same case of Simmons in Missouri – that executions of anyone under the age of 18 were cruel and unconstitutional, and banned the practice. It was too late for Beazley, however, who was one of the very last juveniles to be executed in the US.
His lawyer at the time of his death, Walter Long, says he is still haunted by the case. "This was a question of showing carefulness and fairness in the application of the law, and on those criteria Texas failed."

The mentally ill prisoner

Kelsey Patterson was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic in 1981. He was involved in two non-fatal shootings, and on both occasions was deemed unfit to stand trial by dint of mental illness. Then in 1992 he shot and killed two people in Palestine, Texas. After the shootings, he went to a friend's house, stripped off all his clothes other than his socks, and stood naked in the street until police came to arrest him. This time, though psychiatrists agreed he was schizophrenic and was under the delusion that he was being controlled through alien implants in his brain, he was deemed fit to be tried and put on death row.
In an exceptionally rare turn, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, a panel appointed by the governor that is almost always hardline on executions, recommended that his death sentence be commuted to life in prison because of his mental illness. Perry chose to ignore the advice, and executed him anyway on 18 May 2004, aged 49, saying: "This defendant is a very violent individual … In the interests of justice and public safety, I am denying the defendants request for clemency."

Two executions, one bullet

Among Perry's record of 234 executions, one of the strangest is the case of the murder that involved just one bullet but led to the deaths of two death row inmates. It involved the case of Joseph Nichols and Willie Williams, who, on 13 October 1980, carried out a robbery at a deli in Houston in which the storeowner was murdered.
Forensics showed that the storeowner had been killed with just one bullet. In the first trial to be held, Williams was accused of having been the shooter. The prosecution presented the jury with evidence that Nichols, though armed, had run away from the shop and that Williams had gone back in and fired the fatal shot. Williams was convicted and executed in 1995.
Nichols was put on trial separately after Williams. He had two trials, the first being set aside as the jury could not agree on a sentence. In his second trial, the prosecution alleged that Nichols, not Williams, was the man who fired the fatal shot.
Jim Marcus, a professor at the University of Texas law school who acted as a legal consultant to Nichols's defence team, said he was astonished by the behaviour of the prosecutors. "What seems to me repugnant about what happened is that the prosecutors' duty was to seek justice and the truth. There was no way that both these guys did the killing. So the prosecution was not telling the truth in one or other case."
Nichols was executed by lethal injection on 7 March 2007, aged 45.

The woman prisoner

Perry has the distinction of having presided over the first execution of a black woman in Texas since the reconstruction period after the civil war. Frances Newton was put to death on 14 September 2005, aged 40, for the murder of her husband Adrian and two children Alton and Farrah.
In this case, Perry did grant a 120-day reprieve to allow defence lawyers to do further forensic analysis. But nonetheless serious doubts remained about the accuracy of the conviction.
David Dow, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center who represented Newton at the end, said he still harbours doubts. There was no evidence of blood or DNA on Newton or her clothes after the killings, which was odd, because the shootings had happened at close range, and would normally have been expected to lead to splattering over the person wielding the gun.
There were also suggestions that police may have confused the gun they said they had retrieved from Newton, and that there may have been a second gun. Dow continues to believe that this might have been a case of murder-suicide, and that Newton went to her death an innocent woman.

 

 

 

The suicidal child killer

On 20 February 2002, a discharged soldier, Tim Nichols, decided in despair to kill his son and then himself in a murder-suicide. His marriage was collapsing, and he felt distraught and hopeless. He killed his son, then 19 months old, but before he could kill himself he was talked out of it by friends and family in the course of a two-hour standoff with police.
From then on, Nichols showed remorse and took full responsibility for his actions, pleading guilty and never making any attempt to deny or belittle what he had done. He had never been in trouble with the law before he killed his son, and was never in trouble while in prison, where he sought forgiveness for his actions in Christianity.
His own family, after initial bewilderment, came to support him in his battle to have his sentence commuted to life in prison. In his clemency petition, his mother Wilma said: "Our family has already suffered a loss by losing TJ. That was my grandson. Losing Tim would be another huge loss to this family."

Her plea was ignored and Nichols went to his death on 22 February, aged 42.

5/1/09 - Illinois governor commutes sentence of mom who killed kids

The new Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn has commuted the sentence of Debra Lynn Gindorf, a woman some experts believe was suffering from postpartum depression when she killed her two children more than two decades ago. Gindorf, now 45, was found guilty but mentally ill for the 1985 murders of Christina, 23 months and Jason, 3 months. Gindorf was given a sentence of life without parole, but Quinn shortened the sentence to 48 years. In Illinois, she will receive a day of credit for every day she has served under "good conduct" rules and will be eligible for immediate release on parole because she has already served 24 years. The 45-year-old Gindorf was found guilty but mentally ill in the 1985 slayings of 23-month-old Christina and 3-month-old Jason. She tried to kill herself and the children but she survived the blend of alcohol and sleeping pills and woke the next morning beside her dead children. Quinn spokesman Bob Reed declined comment. The Lake County State's Attorney's office had supported clemency for Gindorf. In interviews published in local papers, Gindorf refers to the murder of her children as "the accident."

L1 Tourism Mythbusters/ Corrections

Mythbusters is a television show in the United States that aims to "bust" common myths and urban legends that are commonly accepted using scientific experiments.

Part 1

1. What does the word "bust" mean in the sentence above?

        a. invent                              b. disprove                         c. explode                           d. understand

2. What is the myth that they are trying to bust? (00:25)

3. What were the two parts of talking on the phone that were thought of as dangerous? (00:35)

        a. dialing     b. conversation         c. keeping your eyes on the road             d. answering

4. What is the "key factor" of this myth? (00:50)

        a. it is safe talk at a stoplight      b. talking with a hands-free device is unsafe     

       

        c. texting while driving is unsafe

5. Where are they going to test this myth? (01:02)

6. What is a control lap?  What is their control lap? (01:19)

7. How will the navigate the course the second time? (01:29)

8. How will they navigate the course the third time? (01:40)

9. What speed did the drivers have to reach for the first test? (02:52)

        a. 20 mph            b. 30 mph            c. 40 mph             d. 50 mph

10. What is the last test? (04:15)

        a. speed test      b. brake test      c. parking test   d. accident avoidance test

Part 2

11. What is the first task on the cell phone? (00:24)

       

        a. respond to questions                b .repeat a sentence      c. tell a story      d. answer the phone

12. Did they do well on the tests? (03:10)

13. What did they do to feel drunk faster? (04:35)

                a. drink a lot       b. smoke cigarettes        c. fast (not eat)                 d. not sleep

14. What is the legal blood-alcohol  limit to operate a vehicle in California? (05:00)

       

        a. 1.0                     b. 0.05                   c. 0.3                      d. 0.08

15. How many beers did Adam have to drink? (07:00)

Part 3

16. Did Kari pass the test under the influence of alcohol? (01:45)

17. Did Adam pass the test under the influence of alcohol? (03:00)

18. What was the conclusion of this experiment? (03:53)

January 21, 1976 was an historic day.  On that day, two supersonic Concorde air crafts made their first flights.  One took of from London and the other from Paris.  Later that year, the first Concorde flew to New York.  The flight from London to New York took about three hours.  Other planes took twice the time to make that flight!  The fleet of ’Concords was retired in 2003.  Over the years, the planes had carried more than 2.5 million passengers.

_______________________________________________________

Do you know where the longest road on Earth can be found?  The Pan-American Highway begins in Alaska.  It passes through Canada, the United States and Mexico.  Then it continues down the west coast of South America all the way to Chile.  Altogether, the highway passes through 12 countries.  It passes through jungles and mountains, the road is about 16,000 miles long.  At this time, only one, 54-mile stretch of the road remains to be completed.

_______________________________________________________

Are you familiar with the work of Marie Curie?  Born in Warsaw, Poland on November 7, 1867, Curie was a chemist and a physicist.  She and her husband Pierre, won the Nobel Prize in 1903 for their discovery of the element radium.  In 1911, Marie became the first person to win the Nobel Prize twice. She won the second award for her study of radioactivity.  Marie died in 1934 from cancer caused by her long contact with radiation. 

 

English Pub Quiz

Once again it is time for an English Pub Quiz night at the Inishmore Pub in Angers.

Bring a team or come alone and we will find you one.

We will have a fun time doing trivia and making new friends.

The evening starts at 20h

Inishmore Pub
20 rue Chateaugontier
49100 ANGERS

Class 4: 10/2 L1 Tourism Translation/Internet as a Human Right

Traduire :

1.  Est-ce que tu as aimé ton stage ? Oui, j’ai travaillé à la Réception de l’hôtel, je me suis occupé des clients qui arrivaient, j’ai répondu au téléphone … mais ce que j’ai préféré, c’était le contact avec la clientèle.

Did you like your internship?  Yes (I did), I worked at the hotel reception/hotel front desk/front desk of the hotel, I took care of guests who arrived/arriving guests, I answered the telephone/phone… but what I preferred/I liked best/I preferred most was the contact with the guests/clientele. 

2.  Ses tâches étaient diverses. Et l’entreprise lui a permis de prendre des responsabilités.

His/her tasks/duties/jobs were diverse and the company/firm allowed/permitted him/her to have responsibilities.

3.  Nous étions chargés d’informer les clients. Nous faisions aussi les réservations pour eux.

We were in charge of informing the guests.  We also made reservations/the booking for them.

4.  Le stage a duré 3 mois.

The internship lasted for 3 months.

The internship was 3 months long.

5.  Vous avez appris beaucoup durant cette période et l’ambiance était agréable.

You learned a lot during this time/period and the ambiance/atmosphere was agreeable.

6.  Il aimerait trouver un stage dans un autre domaine maintenant.

Now he would like to find an internship in another domain/field.  

We then discussed what is a human right.

Human right: something that you need to survive and to live well.  This is a universal right and is therefore for everyone.

Ex. liberty, equality, freedom of expression and opinion. 

These are usually the rights we see in a developed country.

Ex. water, food, shelter

These are the most basic human rights needed to survive. 


March 9, 2010
Most of the world’s Internet users believe Internet access is a basic human right. This is according to a new poll conducted for the BBC. A survey of more than 27,000 adults in 26 different countries found four out of five people believed access to the World Wide Web was a right everyone in the world needs and should have. The chief of the International Telecommunication Union, Dr. Hamadoun Toure, told the BBC World Service: "The right to communicate cannot be ignored. The Internet is the most powerful potential source of enlightenment ever created." Dr. Toure believes online access should be available everywhere, just like roads and water. In some countries, this has already happened. Finland and Estonia have laws saying access is a human right.
The survey also showed how the Internet is quickly becoming a vital part of our life, all across the world. Over 75 per cent of Japanese, Mexican and Russian people said they could not live without it. It is easy to see why. Almost everything we do in our life today, from communication, study, work and leisure, needs the Internet. Without access to the Web, many people would feel helpless and powerless. Almost 80 per cent of those who took the survey believe the Web had a positive impact, with nearly four fifths saying they have greater freedom. Other people were worried about the dangers of using the Internet. One big surprise was that the majority of Germans felt it was not safe for them to express their opinions online.
HUMAN RIGHTS: What do you think of these new ones? Complete this table with your partner(s). Change partners and share what you heard.

	Yes / No (Why?)	Problems	Solutions to problems
Internet access
Live anywhere
A well-paying job
Free education
Free legal services
Party anytime

Class 7: 10-18/2/14 MAG/English Conversation: E-Waste the New Waste

·         Electronic waste (e-waste) now makes up five percent of all municipal solid waste worldwide, nearly the same amount as all plastic packaging, but it is much more hazardous. Not only developed countries generate e-waste; Asia discards an estimated 12 million tons each year.

·         E-waste is now the fastest growing component of the municipal solid waste stream because people are upgrading their mobile phones, computers, televisions, audio equipment and printers more frequently than ever before. Mobile phones and computers are causing the biggest problem because they are replaced most often.

·         Interesting Facts:

• The average lifespan of computers in developed countries has dropped from six years in 1997 to just two years in 2005.

• Mobile phones have a lifecycle of less than two years in developed countries.

• 183 million computers were sold worldwide in 2004 - 11.6 percent more than in 2003.

• 674 million mobile phones were sold worldwide in 2004 - 30 percent more than in 2003.

• By 2010, there will be 716 million new computers in use. There will be 178 million new computer users in China, 80 million new users in India.

How much waste is generated per country?

Waste per person per year (measured in kilograms):|

Australia 450
Austria 550
Belgium 470
Canada 380
Czech Republic 280
Denmark 670
Finland 450
France 540
Germany 640
Greece 430
Hungary 460
Iceland 730
Ireland 750
Italy 520
Japan 410
Korea 390
Luxembourg 660
Mexico 320
Netherlands 600
New Zealand 400
Norway 700
Poland 260
Portugal 450
Slovak Republic 300
Spain 650
Sweden 470
Switzerland 660
Turkey 360
United Kingdom 620
United States 740

That makes an average 20 to 50 million metric tons of e-waste are disposed worldwide every year.

We then discussed an article given in class:

Toxic 'e-waste' dumped in poor nations, says United Nations

Millions of tons of old electronic goods illegally exported to developing countries, as people dump luxury items

John Vidal

The Observer, Saturday, December 14, 2013

Edited for use.

Millions of mobile phones, laptops, tablets, toys, digital cameras and other electronic devices bought this Christmas are destined to create a flood of dangerous "e-waste" that is being dumped illegally in developing countries, the UN has warned.

The global volume of electronic waste is expected to grow by 33% in the next four years, when it will weigh the equivalent of eight of the great Egyptian pyramids, according to the UN's Step initiative, which was set up to tackle the world's growing e-waste crisis. Last year nearly 50m tons of e-waste was generated worldwide – or about 7kg for every person on the planet. These are electronic goods made up of hundreds of different materials and containing toxic substances such as lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic and flame retardants.

Once in landfill, these toxic materials seep out into the environment, contaminating land, water and the air. In addition, devices are often dismantled in primitive conditions. Those who work at these sites suffer frequent bouts of illness.

An indication of the level of e-waste being shipped to the developing world was revealed by Interpol last week. It said almost one in three containers leaving the EU that were checked by its agents contained illegal e-waste.  "The explosion is happening because there's so much technical innovation. TVs, mobile phones and computers are all being replaced more and more quickly. The lifetime of products is also shortening."

Although it is legal to export discarded goods to poor countries if they can be reused or refurbished, much is being sent to Africa or Asia under false pretences, says Interpol. "Much is falsely classified as 'used goods' although in reality it is non-functional. It is often diverted to the black market and disguised as used goods to avoid the costs associated with legitimate recycling," said a spokesman. "A substantial proportion of e-waste exports go to countries outside Europe, including west African countries. Treatment in these countries usually occurs in the informal sector, causing significant environmental pollution and health risks for local populations," he said.

The European Environment Agency, which estimates between 250,000 tons and 1.3m tons of used electrical products are shipped out of the EU every year, mostly to west Africa and Asia. "These goods may subsequently be processed in dangerous and inefficient conditions, harming the health of local people and damaging the environment," said a spokesman.

A new study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests that the US discarded 258.2million computers, monitors, TVs and mobile phones in 2010, of which only 66% was recycled. Nearly 120million mobile phones were collected, most of which were shipped to Hong Kong, Latin America and the Caribbean. The shelf life of a mobile phone is now less than two years, but the EU, US and Japanese governments say many hundreds of millions are thrown away each year or are left in drawers. In the US, only 12million mobile phones were collected for recycling in 2011 even though 120million were bought. Meanwhile, newer phone models are racing on to the market leaving old ones likely to end up in landfills.

The failure to recycle is also leading to shortages of rare-earth minerals to make future generations of electronic equipment.