Effect of Increased Levels of Car Ownership

Effect of Increased Levels of Car Ownership Thomas Wust Increased levels of car ownership – is it driving places to the point of no return? In the past century, the car has become an everyday essential item for increasing numbers of people globally. There are 5 people in my house and we own one car. It has a diesel engine, and it is used for the school run every Monday to Friday. My dad then takes the car to Wolverhampton to work. He uses more fuel travelling 6 miles in the town to drop me and my brothers off at our schools and my mum at work, than he does travelling 22 miles on the motorway to go to work. The journey time isn’t much different either. Map 1: Car Ownership Levels7 KEY 601+ 501-600 301-500 151-300 101-150 61-100 41-60 21-40 11-20 The map shows that in most MEDC’s, there are over 301 cars per capita, whereas in LEDC’s, there are considerably less (mostly Map2 (below) from Worldmapper8 shows car ownership levels from a different perspective. ‘Larger than life’ areas e.g. North America, Japan and the UK have high levels, whereas ‘shrunken’ areas have fewer, hence why Africa and parts of Asia are visually smaller than Europe and America. This may be a necessity in some areas eg remote rural areas where public transport links are limited (Cumbria, UK) or a luxury in others, where public transport networks are seamless eg Germany. Map 2: Car Ownership – a different view! Over time, cars have become increasingly common place but can the existing roads and related infrastructure cope with the extreme increase of car ownership? Will the extent of road coverage become over-run in the future? Is it indeed driving places to the point of no return? The number of cars available in the UK (known as the car parc) has risen from 17 million in 1971, to 31 million in 2007 according to the RAC. That’s almost doubled in 36 years (average annual increase of 3%). Car Ownership on the increase – what are the causes? What are the effects of increased car ownership? The effects of car ownership are beneficial for some, but not for others. Socially, the car is an easy commute, and is accessible to all, regardless to age or height (persons under 17 in the UK cannot drive, however they can be passengers). There are impacts in regard to health, because CO2 emissions in UK cities are too high according to EU rules, meaning potential impacts for those with breathing related ailments. Economically, the effects are positive because it creates transport related employment; generates income from fuel duty and road tax, which help the UK government to provide a safer driving environment. However, there is a negative effect economically. When a vehicle collides with another, or crashes into property, insurance companies pay for the damage, which costs them a lot of money. Environmentally, there are only downsides to car ownership; the largest being the emissions released from a cars’ exhaust, and because car ownership is increasing, the problem will only develop and cause more problems, unless car designs improve. Noise pollution is an additional problem. Toll roads also cause environment problems. This is because many are built over green-field land (land not built on) and they are used by a small amount of people in the UK, therefore not only is it bad for the environment, but it’s also a waste of money and land. According to a campaigner for better transport in the UK, the M6 toll has no net benefit for drivers whilst causing huge and irreversible environmental damage.11 The M6 Toll carries 55,000 vehicles per day12, out of the 2  ½ million vehicles in the West Midlands. That’s 0.022% of vehicles in the West Midlands per day – that arguably makes it an expensive race track. Also, oil consumption becomes a problem, especially with the car ownership rates increasing in China: â€Å"We project that the total vehicle stock will increase from about 800 million in 2002 to over 2 billion units in 2030. In particular, China’s vehicle stock will increase nearly twenty-fold, to 390 million in 2030. This fast speed of vehicle ownership expansion implies rapid growth in oil demand.†13 Oil is a non renewable fossil fuel. We have gone beyond ‘peak oil’ and will need to find alternatives, potentially this will help the environment. This could be rectified by manufacturing car that use biofuels made of organic matter and other materials, and electric cars. Again, public transport falls into this category, however, in the UK especially, we need to work on the reputation of public transport in terms of cost, friendliness of employees and late arrivals. Globally, car ownership is increasing; however different countries are increasing at different rates. Map 3 (p6) shows how many cars the country had per 1000 people in 2010. The map shows that the U.S. has the highest amount of cars to 1000 people and Kenya have the lowest with 24 cars to 1000 people. What I find very surprising from this data is how low China’s and India’s cars per capita is, however I believe this is a good move by China and India from an environmental perspective because of their flourishing economy and workforce, they already emit high levels of carbon dioxide emissions in the world. Having a lower car ownership rate than other countries per 1000 people assists in bringing the amount of carbon emissions down. In addition to this, China is a NIC (newly industrialised country), and so is India, so they may not be able to command such a large car ownership per capita. Because this data is 4 years old, the numbers would have changed. My prediction in 2014 is that the NIC’s (See table below) would have increased car ownership per capita, as their countries are developing and transport is much needed. MEDC’s are trying to reduce the amount of cars on the road due to climate change targets needing to be met, especially the case in the EU. LEDC’s would have stayed the same or increased if more cars are bought or as they begin to become a developing country. MEDC Country Cars per Capita NIC Country Cars per Capita LEDC Country Cars/capita U.S. 797 Japan 591 South Africa 165 Australia 717 Russia 293 Kenya 24 New Zealand 713 Brazil 249 Canada 607 China 83 U.K. 519 India 18 In comparison to MEDC’s and LEDC’s, it is clear that MEDC’s have a higher number of cars per capita than LEDC’s. The main causes of car levels rising is a population increase. With 7 billion people on the planet now, people want an easy method of transport and the car is the obvious solution for most. If the world’s population carries on increasing at the predicted rate of 1 billion people every approximately 12 years in the world, the effects of increased car ownership could be increased congestion, more grid lock, and an unhealthy effect of the Earth’s climate. What if we †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. increase the price of cars when the customer already has 2 cars to their household. This could discourage customers from purchasing extra cars and will result in fewer cars on the roads. In addition, fewer cars mean less repairs and refurnishing on the roads, making less congestion and traffic jams. This will also decrease the risk of collision if there are fewer cars. Increase road taxes. Although this will be extremely unpopular with motorists, it will mean they have less disposable income to spend on additional cars. Furthermore, the extra money is going to the government, and they put the money back in to making driving safer by placing safety cameras. enforce a law which limits a household to 2 cars. This will be effective because it prevents excessive car ownership and will aid in the sustainability of road structures because there will be fewer cars to damage the road. The knock on effect here is reduced employment in the car industry. build additional roads on unused land. Although this is definitely not environmentally friendly, it will mean that vehicles have more roads to use. This will assist in making less grid locks and less congestion. This scenario isn’t fully sustainable because car ownership is always rising (if predicted rate happens), and eventually those roads will be used up too. Create more public transport capacity. Even though a household may own 3 cars, they will be used less if we tempt them onto the bus or train. The solution is great if you live in an urban area where these services are available; however this may not be a viable solution to people living in a rural area where a bus service or train station isn’t available. Develop more cycle routes and pedestrian pathways to encourage people to walk to their destination or cycle there. Not only will this help with the congestion and grid lock problem, it is also helping the environment because fewer emissions from cars will be released into the atmosphere. This also helps with the UK obesity issue too. If we look to Germany and Switzerland, their public transport systems are developed and provide an excellent service, as I can say because of personal experiences and comparisons between the UK’s. However it seems that the UK are taking steps forward in improving public transport, as the government have confirmed a  £2.7bn deal to build new ‘state of the art’ trains between London and Scotland. UK Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said: â€Å"These new trains will transform rail travel between many of the great towns and cities of England and Scotland. This deal is further proof that our long-term economic plans are on track, creating jobs and breathing new life into the UK’s train-building industry.† In conclusion, I feel that we need to tempt drivers from their cars and convince them to use public transport or cycle and walk as an alternative. Walking brings health benefits to the individual and in terms of reduced emissions. Car ownership is driving us to the point of no return, we cannot escape that fact, however with careful direction and thought we could ‘turn the corner’ and become more sustainable. As a result of my research, when I am older and able to drive, I will try to only own one car, two only if it absolutely necessary. This is to help the levels of car ownership stay the same or decrease in my area, helping my and others’ health. Ideally I will live close to work, cutting commuting time and improving the chance of viable public transport use. Bibliography/Sources FOR INDEPENDENT REPORT 2 – TRANSPORT http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/car%20ownership%20in%20great%20britain%20-%20leibling%20-%20171008%20-%20report.pdf www.potholes.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita www.outline-world-map.com http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666 http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/?gclid=CNf3ysa3t7wCFQQGwwod6hMAxg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_vehicles_per_capita.svg http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=31 http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.59290322580644;ti=2007$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=tu0H0unnUriNvMXwH_qOqzw;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=194;dataMax=96846$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=0.2955;dataMax=1214$map_s;sma=50;smi=2$cd;bd=0$inds= https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/fig/figure-5-2.jpeg http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25221134 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtran/218/218we19.htm http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?rep=rep1type=pdfdoi=10.1.1.168.3895 https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport http://people.virginia.edu/~yo3t/wp/cars.pdf http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/pratik-dave/225581/investments-made-under-national-urban-renewal-mission-india-did-it-help-reduce-ve

Is Samsung Both Low Cost and Differentiated If Yes, How Does It Do Both?

Samsung is low cost and differentiated. According to exhibit 7a-7i, it can be seen that Samsung has a lower operating cost of $8. 50 as compared to industry average of $11. 03 as well as higher profit margin 6. 6 times that of its competitors. This reflects Samsung ability to deliver desired value to customers using lean and effective design and production. Samsung is able to maintain the low cost largely because of lower labor, R&D and raw material cost. Samsung has a relatively lower labor cost for each production unit because its meritocratic hiring and evaluation system, reward policies, employees’ welfare and benefits to employees’ family allow employees to focus on innovation and productivity. Hardworking employees are always ready to work overtime, thereby eliminating wastage of resources needed to source for additional help or last minute hire. Also, its strategic location in Korea translates into some savings in labor cost compared to companies that operate in Japan and US. Samsung’s collocation of its main R&D facility and fab lines is estimated to have saved an average of 12% on fab construction costs. Living together at the Samsung’s primary campus, R&D and production engineers solve design and production engineering problems together and, indirectly encouraged good rapport. This may explain the lower R&D cost that Samsung incurs. Samsung’s innovative technology contributed to lower raw material costs and higher yield rate. Samsung currently uses the smallest process technology of 0. 11Â µm which enables them to have a higher net dice per wafer compared to their peers who uses 0. 13Â µm. Samsung needs less materials than others to produce the same product, reducing overall production cost. Its innovation not only reduced cost, but also formed its differentiated core competency. Noticeably, its innovation has reduced defects in its product also help to lower wastage and hence lower cost of production. Samsung is also innovative in customizing to their customers needs by designing different offer for each segment. The strategic fit of the different activities formed Samsung’s differentiated core competency that is definitely valuable, rare, costly to imitate and nonsubstitutable. The activities include the presence of a productive and innovative human resource, strategic location, social complexity, good leadership and trusted band name. With these synergistic factors, Samsung is both low cost and differentiated.

The Acquisition Between Merck and Schering-Plough

On March 9, 2009, Merck & Co., Inc. and Schering-Plough Corporation announced that their Boards of Directors have unanimously approved a definitive merger agreement under which Merck and Schering-Plough will combine, under the name Merck in a stock and cash transaction. As the two companies' combined 2008 revenues were $47 billion. The deal officially closed on November 3, 2009. Background of the two parties Merck & Co. (NYSE: MRK) was initially formed in 1891 as a United States subsidiary of the German chemicals and pharmaceutical company Merck KGaA. During World War I, it was established as an independent company from confiscated assets. Since then, it has grown to become one of the top seven largest pharmaceutical and biotech companies worldwide. Schering-Plough (NYSE: SGP) is one of the medium-sized players in the pharmaceutical industry, with sales of $18.5 billion in 2008. Its two largest products are autoimmune medication Remicade, sold internationally, and Zetia & Vytorin, a joint venture taken with Merck that fights cholesterol. While growth of Remicade has been strong, Vytorin has taken a hit after studies questioned its efficacy compared to the older drug it is based on and in treating blockage of the heart valve. The process of the acquisition The Merck and Schering-Plough took the typical reverse merger arrangement during the acquisition process. The Merck- Schering-Plough merger agreement contemplates a two-step transaction involving Merck, Schering-Plough, and Schering’s two special purpose, subsidiary holding companies, Blue, Inc. and Purple, Inc. In step one of the mergers, Blue will merge into Schering-Plough and each share of Schering-Plough will be converted into the right to receive (i) 0.5767 shares of the surviving Schering-Plough and (ii) $10.50 in cash. In step two of the merger, Purple will merge into Merck and each share of Merck will be converted into 1 share of the surviving Schering-Plough. After the completion of these two steps, the surviving Merck will be a wholly owned subsidiary of the surviving Schering-Plough. Yet, the shareholders of pre-merger Merck will own approximately 68% of the surviving Schering-Plough and shareholders of pre-merger Schering-Plough will own around 32% of the surviving Schering-Plough. Although Merck will become a subsidiary of Schering-Plough Merck’s pre-merger shareholders will together possess a majority of the voting and economic rights (or beneficial ownership) of Merck’s new parent company, Schering-Plough. One peculiarity of the Merck-Schering reverse merger transaction structure is that between steps one and two Merck finds itself in a slightly precarious situation. After the completion of step one, Schering’s pre-merger shareholders will have received shares of the surviving Schering-Plough and a cash payout, but Merck’s pre-merger shareholders will not yet have seized control over the management of the surviving Schering-Plough. The merger agreement has come up with a way to protect Merck’s shareholders during this governance gap. Simultaneously with the completion of step one of the merger, Schering has agreed that its board will cause all of its directors (other than 3 specified exceptions) to resign and to elect the members of pre-merger Merck’s board of directors as the directors of the surviving Schering corporation. Even before pre-merger Merck’s shareholders acquire their supermajority share of the beneficial ownership of the surviving Schering corporation after step two, they indirectly will have already taken the helm of the surviving Schering corporation through the election of their own directors to the new parent company’s board. The motivation of the acquisition Merck faces many of the challenges that face all pharmaceutical companies, including issues surrounding patent expiration and FDA approval. Patent expiration may affect 30% of sales through 2008. In addition, there is growing pressure in the US and abroad to lower the price of medication. Schering-Plough has a particularly small pipeline, with very few drugs currently in development. In the near term, it does however have one of the safest profiles in the industry, with very few major patents coming up for expiration in the coming years. The newest merger will result in a strengthened product pipeline in areas such as cardiovascular and respiratory disease and oncology, and should eventually yield $3.5 billion annually in cost savings. Merck is also set to be hit by patent expiries of some of its top sellers in the next decade, while Schering-Plough is not.

The Nuclear Bomb Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki Essay - 1393 Words

The nuclear bombs code named â€Å"Little Boy† and â€Å"Fat Man† were detonated over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the summer of August 1945 by the United States of America in an attempt to end World War II. The immediate death toll was extremely high with an estimated 60,000 to 80,000 people killed upon impact of the bombs due to the extreme heat, flying shrapnel, and the pressure of the blast wave. The overall death toll is now estimated to be about 192,020 dead due to long term health effects such as radiation poisoning and burns. These bombs also caused a multitude of long term medical and social problems for surviving victims such as in utero mutations in future generations of children and a large percentage of homeless citizens after the war. As a result of these bombs the Japanese emperor Hirohito accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration ending World War II. These bombings remain the single most horrific acts of warfare ever carried o ut on another country. Thousands of Japanese citizens were immediately disintegrated upon impact of the bombs by the thermal radiation released near the hypocenter or ground zero of the explosion, death rates decreasing the further out from the hypocenter. Second and third degree burns on the flesh were a result of very high degrees of thermal radiation on the human body and so only occurred within close proximity to the atomic blast, that being around five miles. If these third and second degree burns covered only aShow MoreRelatedThe Nuclear Bomb Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki1658 Words   |  7 Pages1945, the United States Military dropped two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were noble reasons for dropping the bombs, but surely destroying two entire cities questions the integrity of the United States. So again I ask, who is good and who is evil? After the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States was eager to learn more about the impacts of nuclear devices on the environment. The United States set up several nuclear bomb tests on the Marshall Islands in which they properlyRead MoreHiroshima And Nagasaki Bombing Of Hiroshima1206 Words   |  5 PagesWar Two Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombing The Bombing In 1945, the US dropped 2 atomic bombs on the cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, causing hundreds of thousands civilian deaths. Some people say that this act helped to end the world war and save more lives, but others think that it was not needed and wasn t the cause of the Japanese surrender. Sequence of Events 5th August 1945 President gives approval to use bombs 6th August 1945 Bombing of Hiroshima 9th August 1945 Bombing of Nagasaki 15th AugustRead MoreThe Day That Shook the World667 Words   |  3 PagesWhat comes to mind when you hear the word â€Å"bomb†? Is it the Boston Marathon tragedy? Is it the Pearl Harbor Bombing? How about the World Trade Center attack? All of these are major bombings that have happened in the U.S. Sadly, they aren’t the only ones. There have been numerous bombings that our world has survived, but that doesn’t mean we haven’t suffered from their outcomes. The devastation of war on our world is monumental. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima is an important event in history that hasRead MoreWas The Bombing Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki Morally Justified?1736 Words   |  7 PagesWas the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ethically justified? – Why Truman decided to drop the atomic bombs on Japan – By Grace Kelsall World War 2 saw the emergence of America as a new world power on August 6th 1945, also internationally known as the traumatizing day for Hiroshima; after an American B-29 bomber dropped the world’s first atomic bomb. World War Two is considered a great turning point in modern history, it being one of the bloodiest and horrific wars; exposing all countries aroundRead MoreNuclear Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki981 Words   |  4 PagesII, in Hiroshima, Japan, thousands died. The â€Å"Enola Gay dropped a 9,000 lb TNT bomb called â€Å"Little Boy.† Approximately 78,150 people died after one death count, but radiation was still lethal. Three days later, another bomb was dropped. â€Å"Fat Man,† dropped by â€Å"Bock’s Car,† was a Uranium-235 bomb, even though it did less damage than Hiroshima, the seaport of Nagasaki still was torn to pieces. Overall, there were approximately 23,753 lives taken by â€Å"Fat Man.† The Nuclear bombings of Hiro shima and NagasakiRead MoreHiroshima, Japan, And Japan1352 Words   |  6 PagesAnswers Who: Hiroshima, Japan and Nagasaki, Japan Leader of Japan: Hideki Tojo, Minister of war Leader of United States: General Douglas MacArthur Hiroshima Hiroshima is a city located in Honshu, Japan. On August 6, 1945, Hiroshima became the first city in the world to be struck by an atomic bomb. (Hiroshima, britannica.com) From 1868 it was a military center, and was a target for the atomic bombing by U.S. during World War II. Nagasaki Nagasaki is a city located in KyushuRead MoreHiroshima And Nagasaki And Hiroshima1181 Words   |  5 Pages Hiroshima and Nagasaki Hiroshima and Nagasaki most known cities in Japan for the explosion of the two atomic bombs(Little Boy and Fat Man)The world changed irrevocably 70 years ago,on August 6,1945 when the United States dropped the first nuclear (bomb) weapon in the history of the civilian population of Hiroshima ,Japan.Three days later ,the second and ,to date ,final atomic weapon used against human targets was dropped on Nagasaki ,Japan.Hundred of thousands were killed.Many horrifically burnedRead MoreThe World s Second Atomic Bomb1282 Words   |  6 Pagesoff from Tinian Island in the Mariana Islands. It carried the world s second atomic bomb, the first having been detonated three weeks earlier at a United States test site in Alamogordo, New Mexico. The Enola Gay carried one atomic bomb, with an enriched uranium core. The bomb had been named Little Boy. It had an explosive force of some 12,500 tons of TNT. At 8:15 a.m. that morning, as the citizens of Hiroshima were beginning their day, the Enola Gay released its horrific cargo, which fell for 43Read MoreWorld War Ii Research Paper: Hiroshima and Nagasaki1693 Words   |  7 PagesIn the midst of World War II, August 1945, the United States unleashed the first ever atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The usage of the atomic bomb was effective, but at the same time devastating and unnecessary. The United States should not have dropped the atomic bomb because it maimed countless of Japanese civilians, caused radiation poisoning whose effects impacted future generations, left both cities in ruins, left citizens homeless, and it was absolutely unmoral for the UnitedRead MoreThe Debate Over The Atomic Bomb On Hiroshima And Nagasaki1383 Words   |  6 Pages The debate over the impact of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki concerns the ethical, legal and military controversies surrounding the United States atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This tragedy occurred on two occasions; the 6th and the 9th of August 1945, and signified the conclusion of the Second World War, 1939-1945. There were many questionable motives involved in the event, as such a decision required moral certainty. Proceeding the bombings, the terms of surrender for