Overall, the work experience definitely helped me progress as a student, worker and human being. I developed journalism and life skills that otherwise would still need work. The whole thing was incredibly useful, as it has opened doors for a future career, and also added Shauna to my contact and potential employers list.

The specialist reporting unit threw up many challenges which I enjoyed facing. For example, choosing a specialist subject was something that I initially struggled with. I wanted to do something I was already quite well informed about, but I also wanted to challenge myself. I chose the environment because, to be honest, it is something my generation don't really think hard enough about, or even think about at all.

I've always cared for the environment, as I detest seeing big TNC's and OPEC countries blend it up into one big polluted mess for a future generation to try and unravel. This specialist area also allowed me to branch out into a new area that I had never really written about.

The whole exercise of choosing a specialist area also gave me more freedom and reason to research environmental stories. Whilst writing for my blog, I also grew angry over the fact that so little environmental reporting makes it into the front page or the top of the bill of a news programme - something that also inspired me to do an environmental blog.

Unfortunately, due to the target audience of our Specialist reporting newspaper, NewsFeed, I was never able to produce an environmental story for every issue of the paper that I worked on.

But, I have enjoyed writing about environmental issues and hopefully giving them to a wider audience to digest and think about.

This blog has opened my eyes further to the consequences of environmental degradation, and I'm thankful for choosing this subject area, as I have broadened my writing spectrum.

Almost every resource we have on this planet is finite. From gas to water, wood to coal, oil to metal ore. These are all finite, meaning we have a limited amount of each, and once we selfishly use them up, there will be no more left. Water is slightly different, as we can clean it, the same with wood as we can grow more trees, but it's not that easy in reality.

When students start looking for a house, the first thing they all do is look at how much the rent will cost them each month. Most people would be happy with £350 a month in rent, but as a group, we decided to push the boat out a little bit in an attempt to find a nicer property. The first house we looked at ended up being our final one. We settled on it as the rent was a reasonable £398 a month, excluding bills. It's a new build, only five years old, which was something that sealed the deal. However, something that left us shocked was the fact our tenancy agreement came with the option for "unlimited bills". A scheme that would allow the us as tenants to pay £12.50 a week per person for our bills, no matter how much water, electricity and gas we use. This means that we could have left the heating on all day, until the proverbial cows come home, yet we would only pay the £12.50 per person.

Why would we need such a scheme in a brand new house? A house very well insulated, and fitted with a brand new, more Eco-friendly and efficient boiler.

The only reasonable explanation would be to save students money, but I'm afraid that doesn't look like a great defence. £12.50 a week would add up to £650 per student for the 12 month tenancy. So, for a house of four, that would be £2600 a year in gas, electricity a water bills. But, if students were allowed to shop around for their energy supplier, they could save over £300 annually (gocompare.com).

Unlimited bills are also staggeringly bad for the environment. The average UK house hold produces ten tonnes of CO2 a year, already a breath taking amount. But, inviting students to permanently leave the gas burning and the electricity and water flowing is always going to cause environmental problems.

I leave it to you, the bill payer, to look sit down and thoroughly work out exactly what your bills are costing your wallet, as well as what they are costing the environment.

The highest sulphur dioxide emissions in Europe and floating poo in the sea. This was Britain the 1970's. Essentially an island nation committed to choking ourselves with fumes from our industrial cities.

Britain was a very different place 45 years ago. We were still reaping the rewards and losses of the industrial revolution. Mines were becoming empty and the cities in which we lived were lying snug under a blanket of pollution and smoke. But in 1973, Britain ventured into the European Union (EU), with a vote in 1975 to remain in this "common market". The EU later introduced many environmental laws and legislation.

The European commission, the law and legislation making arm of the EU body, has the exclusive right to propose and introduce environmental policy change. It also has the responsibility to make sure new measures are followed properly.

However, if Britain decides to leave the EU in June 2016, then all environmental decisions will be left to Westminster to make.

Britain joining the EU saw a "Europeanisation" of British attitudes towards environmental policy. For example, the biggest environment conserving actors within Europe, such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden, encouraged Britain to introduce more specific environmental agencies, such as the "national rivers authority".

The EU has also forced Britain to cut all pollution to specific levels in cities and industrial areas. But, Britain has continuously ignored or at least not matched the requirements, with the UK government declaring that targets wouldn't be met until 2030 at the earliest, 20 years after the deadline.

Despite this, the EU has worked wonders for the British environment.

The RSPB and National Trust have said that Europe has had a "hugely positive effect" across many environmental issues. They also warn that leaving the EU would mean Britain going backwards in terms of their environmental policy

European policy also forced Britain to clean up the shores and waters, As an island nation, Britain eats a lot of fish, and so the EU introduced legislation meaning a more green fishing process.

If Britain we're to leave the EU, industry could put huge pressure on the government to soften their stance on environmental policy to allow them an easier time when producing goods for export and internal sale.

"Brexit" would also leave the door open to the government using land set aside for national parks to build housing or industry.

So, what should be done?

Brussels should come down harder on us in the UK. We are, in my opinion, so far behind in terms of environment preservation compared to the rest of Europe. It is essential that as a former and still slightly industrial nation, that we clamp down on environmental degradation.

The new Solent university building, due to be completed later this year

If any of you have ever been inside Solent uni then you know it's hotter than the deepest holes of hell. The heating is on constantly, and then you're blinded by the amount of lights left on across the campus. - Insert your own Dad joke about Blackpool illuminations-. Solent uni is ironically still in the dark ages when it comes to the environment.