# data[].attributes.headline
Q. How can we encourage more people to actively recycle their waste?

# data[].attributes.subject
Q. How can we encourage more people to actively recycle their waste?

# data[].attributes.body
"On average, the recycling rate is now at more than 44 per cent among UK households, but in some areas it’s far higher."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recycling has become a way of life in the UK. We've grown used to diligently dividing up our rubbish into different bins, and doing our bit for the environment.

On average, the recycling rate is now at more than 44 per cent among UK households, but in some areas it's far higher. Wales leads the way - in 2012 it crossed the 50 per cent mark, with the majority of household rubbish now being recycled.

But is it all worth it?

Carbon emission savings

Inevitably, recycling causes some carbon emissions in itself - from the fuel used by collection lorries, to the energy taken to process the rubbish.

So, recycling is only beneficial in tackling climate change if the process emits less greenhouse gas than would be emitted otherwise.

That means that the net emissions saving will be different for different types of rubbish. For instance, you'll probably save more on emissions by recycling materials which would otherwise have to be mined and transported across the world. Whereas materials easily produced in the UK are likely to have a smaller carbon footprint to begin with, so the net emission saving will be less.

A landmark study last year by academics at Southampton University highlighted this variation with a detailed breakdown. The researchers tracked the carbon footprint and carbon savings of dozens of material types for the entire process.

This graph shows their findings for a number of common types of rubbish. The bars show the net amount of greenhouse gasses that are ultimately saved (or emitted) for each tonne of rubbish that's recycled.

Recycling aluminium creates by far the biggest savings of greenhouse gas emissions. Aluminium cans include most soft drink cans, but a lot of food cans are made of steel.

Recycling card and glass has a much smaller impact on reducing emissions. That's not to say it's not worth it - there is still a net saving, after all. But if you were to only recycle one thing in order to save emissions, drink cans would be the best option.

It's worth noting that recycling process varies in different areas, so this study will not be identical in everywhere. However, it's likely to paint a reliable picture of recycling in the UK.

Of course, recycling is about more than just saving carbon emissions. Campaigners cite other benefits, including reducing the amount of landfill, saving resources and avoiding injustices that are sometimes associated with producing new materials.

But here we are focusing on global warming, and the benefits of recycling in saving carbon emissions.

Offsetting your carbon footprint

Recycling may save carbon emissions, but how much does it offset your overall carbon footprint? You might recycle everything, but does that counteract the emissions produced by your car?

The first thing to note is that, in real life, this is not an either/or game. People are not going to stop heating their houses or travelling, so we have to look at recycling in terms of reducing your overall carbon footprint - rather than it being a direct trade off.

Just because you get an occasional flight, that doesn't mean your recycling doesn't still have a positive effect on reducing emissions. But how big an effect does it have?

Using the findings from the Southampton research paper, we calculated the impact of recycling a few specific items. The emission savings were then compared against the emission created by four examples: a 100 mile car journey, a short-haul flight, a long-haul flight and the typical UK annual household energy consumption. (Sources and workings are included at the end of this article).

We found that you would need to recycle more than 20,000 cans of baked beans - or around 8,200 Coke cans - to offset your carbon footprint for a return flight from London to New York.

And a typical household consumption for gas and electricity would be offset by recycling nearly half a million sheets of A4 paper.

Professor Ian Williams, who was one of the authors of the Southampton University research paper, told FactCheck: "Context is important - billions of metal cans and glass bottles are recycled globally every year yet there still is considerable room for improvement. We must continue to improve our household recycling rates if we are to keep carbon emissions to a minimum."

Offset emissions by recycling Coke cans

Offset emissions by recycling wine bottles

Offset emissions by recycling cans of baked beans

Offset emissions by recycling sheets of A4 paper

Do we really need to separate rubbish into all those different bins?

In the UK there are two main methods of recycling collections: commingled and source-segregated.

Popular thinking may suggest that sorting the recycling out yourself, before it is collected, helps the process and is therefore better for the environment. But the truth is more complicated than that.

If your council asks you to separate recycling yourself, then not doing so could potentially hamper the system. But do we need that system in the first place?

Professor Williams told us there has not been an awful lot of research into which collection system is better. But councils' request for residents to separate their waste could be more about politics than the environment.

"I think the reality is there is no perfect answer, but the evidence suggests there is not a significant amount of difference," he said. "Commingled collections tend to be slightly more contaminated, but it's made up for by the fact that they usually collect more rubbish."

The overall difference is negligible because allowing people to mix their recycling could encourage more people to do it in the first place.

(It's also worth noting here that councils can make a lot of money from recycling. For instance, it was reported a few years ago that East Lancashire councils made almost half a million pounds a year by selling on the waste).

How we made our calculations

Net greenhouse gas emissions for each material (aluminium, steel, glass and paper) were based on the 2016 study from Southampton University.

Numbers of unit per tonne were calculated based on the following weights: standard-sized aluminium Coke can weight provided by to FactCheck by Coco-Cola; weight of a standard-sized steel can of beans provided by Kraft Heinz; weight of A4 paper is based on standard 80gsm office paper; weight used for a glass wine bottle is the cut-off weight for "lightweight" bottles, meaning that around 30 per cent of bottles are lighter.

Equivalent carbon emissions of the examples were calculated with carbonfootprint.com. Car emissions based on 100 miles in an EU 2016 FORD All New Focus, Model Year Post 2016½ 1.0 EcoBoost (125PS) with stop/start - 5 Door, A6. Short-haul flight based on an economy class direct return flight, London to Barcelona. Long-haul flight based on an economy class direct return flight, London to New York. Household energy bills based on Ofgem figures for typical household oil and gas consumption per year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recycling has become a way of life in the UK. But recycling causes carbon emissions in itself - from the fuel used by collection lorries, to the energy taken to process the rubbish. So is it all worth it? FactCheck investigates.

# data[].attributes.body
As a general population, we should be more responsible for our waste and recycle more.

# data[].attributes.body
Because not all of are waste is recyclable, we must reuse what is instead of dumping it irresponsibly.

# data[].attributes.headline
Q. How can we engage more young people in politics?

# data[].attributes.subject
Q. How can we engage more young people in politics?

# data[].attributes.body
'According to Ipsos Mori, in the 2015 General Election, only 43% of 18-24 years turned out to vote.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to Ipsos Mori, in the 2015 General Election, only 43% of 18-24 years turned out to vote. The EU referendum had an even lower turnout according to The Independent at 36% (estimated) for 18-24 year olds; and statistics from the US election are yet to be confirmed but it wouldn't be outrageous to suppose that they will be lower than most other age demographics. However, anybody blaming young people for this are, I believe, sorely mistaken - it is not their fault that politicians are doing virtually nothing to engage young voters.

Young people are put off by politics left, right and centre, and it comes from various sources. The judgment and dismissive behaviour of older generations who don't believe that young people have had enough 'life-experience' to make an informed decision are one, and the mainstream media making it all appear so vulgar and confrontational could be another, but ultimately the responsibility lies at the door of politicians.

Yes, arguably politicians do try and engage with young people - I mean look at George Osborne trying to play basketball, or Justin Trudeau's dab, or Hillary Clinton's mannequin challenge, how could you not want to get up and vote when all these politicians are so relatable , hilarious and trendy? Thinking that this is a means to gain young voters is so far off the mark that it is seriously disconcerting, it is fundamentally embarrassing and cringe-worthy, so much so that it probably does the exact opposite of its intentions and pushes young voters away.

There are however extremely effective ways to answer to the question of how to get young people interested in politics. Firstly engage with them on a platform that they know - social media being one. Labour has done a very good job of expressing their message through social media; it's not the best way to reach the wider general public as it stands, but as a way of getting younger people to find out more about your party, it is quite effective.

However, there are still do's and do-nots involved. For instance, Jeremy Corbyn's snapchat is not going to be reaching out to anyone who doesn't already support him, and similarly, Theresa May's pitiful lack of Twitter followers means that she is engaging with nobody other than her current supporters.

US politicians seem to have much more success in this respect, both Clinton and Trump enjoy the benefits of social media as does Bernie Sanders - of course population size has to be accounted for but even with that their messages are accessed by massive numbers. What these characters do that their UK counterparts do not, is to actually present themselves as people and not just political droids (whether it's how they really are or how they actively try to portray themselves is a matter for another day).

Of course, it is in the British nature to be a little reserved, particularly in front of a large audience, but subtleties and witticisms are not easily conveyed through text. Trying to show some personality through social media will take UK politicians a long way in the arduous journey to become appealing to young people. It's not everything that needs to be done, but it would be far more interesting to read than the repetitive tripe written today, and as such it would get the young generation, at the very least, talking about politics and politicians themselves.

There is, however, one fundamental way of getting young people involved in politics, and it is simply to consider them when deciding on policy. Doing away with tuition fees, increasing apprenticeship opportunities, lowering the voting age to 16, capping car insurance for 18-25s, capping rent prices, relaxing drug laws. Ultimately, if politicians listened to young people, young people would support them. If politicians stopped patronising the younger generation and actively changed things to help them find their feet in this country, then they would enjoy much healthier turnout statistics for 18-25s.

Blaming young people for not going out and voting for someone who offers them absolutely nothing is totally misplaced frustration. Politicians need to get out to schools, colleges, universities, giving talks and answering questions; this shouldn't just happen around election time either. It is common sense to invest time in young people who will shortly come to voting age. At the very least, why ignore a massive demographic who could potentially help win your party power?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to Ipsos Mori, in the 2015 General Election, only 43% of 18-24 years turned out to vote. The EU referendum had an even lower turnout according to The Independent at 36% (estimated) for 18-24 year olds; and statistics from the US election are yet to be confirmed but it wouldn't be outrageous to suppose that they will be lower than most other age demographics.

# data[].attributes.headline
Q. How can we make sure every child has access to education at an early age?

# data[].attributes.subject
Q. How can we make sure every child has access to education at an early age?

# data[].attributes.body
'61 million children of primary school age (typically aged 6-11) are not in school'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
UNICEF | Children's Rights & Emergency Relief Organization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
All children in school

A child's access to education is often determined by circumstances such as gender, location, conflict, disability and the family's socioeconomic status - factors that exist before the child is born. These barriers exclude 61 million primary school age children from school and deny them a fair chance to reach their full potential. Worst, exclusion from school not only thwarts children's individual potential but also fuels intergenerational cycles of poverty and disadvantage. It robs societies of a source of dynamic growth and development, and a chance to build social cohesion and reduce tensions that can spark violence. Every girl and boy, regardless of who they are or where they live, is entitled to nothing less than full and complete access to quality education. But many of the world's poorest and most marginalized children are denied this basic human right.

Around the world:

· 61 million children of primary school age (typically aged 6-11) are not in school

· 60 million adolescents of lower secondary school age (typically aged 12-15) are not in school

The children excluded from education are among the most vulnerable in the world.

Crises, including violence, war, natural disasters and epidemics, disrupt children's schooling, and children who are already disadvantaged because of poverty, gender or other factors suffer the most in those situations. Read more about Education in Emergencies here.

Girls are often still at a significant disadvantage in education, accounting for over half of out-of-school children of primary school age. Read more about Girls' Education.

Our works starts with identifying who is out of school and why. UNICEF gathers and makes these data available to governments and communities and helps them design policy interventions tailored to local, regional and national needs.
Read more about Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children, a partnership between UNICEF and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics that help ensure every child has access to quality education, is ready for school at the right age and can complete primary education.
Children from ethnic or linguistic minorities often face obstacles like discrimination based on their origin, or lack of instruction and materials in their native language.

Many children with disabilities are excluded from education, where schools fail to make the accommodations that enable them to learn - and where stigma shuts them out of schools and the mainstream of their communities.

Children from the poorest families are more likely to be out of school than their peers from wealthier households, some because they have to work to help funds their families' lives. Children living in rural areas also have less chance of going to school than those growing up in cities.

· More than one-half of all out-of-school children are in Sub-Saharan Africa

· 53 per cent of children out of school are girls

· 1 in 4 of out-of-school children live in crises-affected countries

· Of the primary-school-aged children not in school, 20 per cent dropped out before finishing primary school, 41 per cent will probably never attend and a further 39 per cent are expected to enter school as over-age students.

On current trends, the world will not achieve universal primary education for many decades to come, much less secondary schooling for all by 2030 as set out by the Sustainable Development Goal 4. As economic crises and depletion of international education funds further stretch the resources the world is willing to devote to education, the number of children out of school will continue to stagnate and the quality of schools will decline.

Who are the out-of-school children? UNICEF's work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A child's access to education is often determined by circumstances such as gender, location, conflict, disability and the family's socioeconomic status - factors that exist before the child is born. These barriers exclude 61 million primary school age children from school and deny them a fair chance to reach their full potential.

# data[].attributes.headline
Q. How can we make waiting for public services a more enjoyable experience?

# data[].attributes.subject
Q. How can we make waiting for public services a more enjoyable experience?

# data[].attributes.body
"Standing in line can cause extreme boredom, annoyance and even rage, which is precisely why there is a fascinating science devoted to what makes people tick -- and ticked off -- when forced to wait..."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(CNN) -- Warning: Standing in line can cause extreme boredom, annoyance and even rage, which is precisely why there is a fascinating science devoted to what makes people tick -- and ticked off -- when forced to wait.

You may not know it, but the seemingly mundane task of forming a queue at the airport, a fast-food joint or a post-Thanksgiving midnight sale is the subject of careful study by experts in the field of queuing psychology.

The findings may not always reduce wait times, but they can cut frustration and make people feel better, or even happy, about waiting in line, said Richard Larson, who has researched queuing psychology for more than two decades.

"You can change a queuing experience into a very positive experience," said Larson, director of the Center for Engineering Systems Fundamentals at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

To do that, businesses where people often wait in line must realize some basic principles of queuing psychology.

Eliminating empty time, for example, makes waits seem shorter, Larson found in his research.

Visitors lining up for attractions at theme parks see this principle at work with queues that often use clever design and technology to make the line itself entertaining.

"We like to view [queues] as the first scene in the story, whatever the story of that particular attraction is," said Joe Garlington, creative vice president of interactives at Walt Disney Imagineering, which develops Disney parks and resorts.

Queuing psych 101

* Occupied time feels shorter than unoccupied time

* People want to get started

* Anxiety makes waits seem longer

* Uncertain waits are longer than known, finite waits

* Unexplained waits are longer than explained waits

* Unfair waits are longer than equitable waits

* The more valuable the service, the longer the customer will wait

* Solo waits feel longer than group waits

Source: David H. Maister, "The Psychology of Waiting Lines"

The line to one popular attraction at Epcot features cameras and large interactive screens that allow visitors to see themselves and play games, such as trying to burst virtual water balloons to reveal a hidden image, Garlington said.

People waiting in line for a comedy show at Walt Disney World are asked to text message jokes that may be used during the main event.

"It works as our warm-up act essentially for the show, but it also takes time while people are working through that and so it keeps them entertained while they're waiting," Garlington said.

"We do study the psychology, try to understand what our guests are thinking and make sure that we're keeping them happy as they move through the lines."

Disney employs more than 75 industrial engineers who help the company with queue management at its parks around the world, said Marilyn Waters, director of media relations at Walt Disney Imagineering.

Social justice

Fair play -- or the idea of first come, first served -- is at the heart of most successful queues. It's one of the reasons most banks, airlines and fast-food restaurants have switched from several open lines that force customers to choose the line they think is moving fastest, to a single serpentine line, which guarantees first come, first served, Larson said.

Violation of fair play can lead to "queue rage." Larson himself became interested in queuing psychology after a frustrating experience he calls the "red bike incident."

He had gone to a store to buy a bicycle for his son and grew furious when he was made to wait 40 minutes to pick up his purchase in the inventory area, while other people who came after him quickly received their items.

"It took me three weeks to calm down after that," Larson said. "I realized, I'm a professor at MIT, I'm usually a sane, rational person. If this has affected me so much that I made a lifetime pledge never ever to go back to that place, it must affect other people as well," Larson said.

There are some exceptions to first come, first served, such as the express checkout lane at the supermarket. Customers buying a couple of items don't expect to get in the same line as those pushing carts filled to the brim. It's an example of another queuing psychology principle that argues people's willingness to wait is usually proportional to the quantity of service they expect to receive, Larson said.

Information, please

Researchers have found that people who know ahead of time how long they will have to wait in line are less anxious than those who don't.

That's why places where you have to queue provide lots of clues about waiting time. Technology even allows some of those clues to go straight to your cell phone or other mobile device.

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International, the world's busiest airport, offers "Trak-a-Line," a service that e-mails passengers when there is a change in wait times for security screening.

"People who are queuing and who are trying to meet a deadline need more information about what is happening to them to allay their anxiety," said Ben DeCosta, aviation general manager at Hartsfield-Jackson. iReport.com: What are your holiday travel plans?

Disney places signs in its parks letting visitors know the approximate wait times for rides and attractions. It's a way of managing expectations and sometimes an opportunity to beat them, Larson said. A sign may say the expected wait time is 40 minutes, when in reality it's half an hour, thus making people feel good about the final outcome.

"So even though they waited 30 minutes in line, they're happy because they think they're 10 minutes ahead of schedule," Larson said.

Garlington said the posted times at Disney's parks are pretty accurate, but that the company's goal is always to better the time that's shown on the signs.

"We'd rather surprise somebody on the positive side than the negative side," Garlington said.

Perhaps the one exception to people's aversion to lines may be the frantic rush for bargains on the Friday after Thanksgiving.

"I view [it] as a huge social event rather than a huge set of queues," Larson said. "My hunch is the lines don't bother people so much because they like to be part of a total experience of that day."

All About Massachusetts Institute of Technology * The Walt Disney Company * Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
center for engineering systems fundamentals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Queuing psychology: Can waiting in line be fun?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(CNN) -- Warning: Standing in line can cause extreme boredom, annoyance and even rage, which is precisely why there is a fascinating science devoted to what makes people tick -- and ticked off -- when forced to wait.

# data[].attributes.body
Waiting or queuing for services is not an enjoyable experience for most people.

# data[].attributes.body
Statistically, a large group of young people do not vote.

# data[].attributes.body
Because the process of waiting is often boring and not entertaining.

# data[].attributes.body
Because waste which is dumped or not recycled can be particularly harmful to the environment, ending up in landfill sites or incineration plants.

# data[].attributes.body
Not all children receive a form of education at a young age.

# data[].attributes.body
Because waiting can take up a lot of time. It is also seen as something that everyone should adhere to.

# data[].attributes.body
Because they are simply not interested or do not understand how politics functions.

# data[].attributes.body
Because the waste is manufactured and non-biodegradable and in some cases, instead of recycling, the waste is disposed of in non-sustainable methods as mentioned above.

# data[].attributes.body
Because it depends on their access to education through a number of intertwined factors.

# data[].attributes.body
Because waiting spaces are often crowded with people.

# data[].attributes.body
Because politics and world issues are discussed/taught very little or simply not at all in schools. As a result, the general consensus amongst young people is that politics doesn't apply to them.

# data[].attributes.body
Because people are waiting for a service they need/want.

# data[].attributes.body
If it is not being taught in schools, then it seems it is not part of every schools curriculum. It is not important as other core subjects.

# data[].attributes.body
Because recyclables are often mixed in with general waste. The process of recycling involves separating waste from non-recyclables which is costly.

# data[].attributes.body
Because every school is focused on it's own academic performance and grades, results, data etc.
Also relates to the debate whether it is the schools responsibility to teach this information?

# data[].attributes.body
Because children who do not receive education are amongst the most at risk and vulnerable. For example, one factor is the child's socio-economic status which is often determined before the child is born.

# data[].attributes.body
Because the child and family may have a poor socio-economic status, either education is not accessible to them or they simply cannot afford it.

# data[].attributes.body
Because a poor socio-economic standing spawns an inter generational cycle of poverty which is difficult to move away from. As such, they remain as disadvantaged individuals.