In a recent state of the union address by Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, a call for a new European Bauhaus reverberated around the web.

This was within the context of transforming the EU into a leader of the circular economy. The aim of a circular economy is to design waste out of economic activity and therefore reduce the impact of our consumption on the environment. There is very little detail on the shape of the new Bauhaus apart from it “ … needs to be a new cultural project for Europe. Every movement has its own look and feel. And we need to give our systemic change its own distinct aesthetic – to match style with sustainability. This is why we will set up a new European Bauhaus – a co-creation space where architects, artists, students, engineers, designers work together to make that happen.”

What caught my attention was the skills that were missing. Scientists. If we are not to repeat the mistakes of the past by producing and consuming products that pollute our environment, science needs to play a central part in the new Bauhuas.

The Bauhaus (“construction house”) was a revolutionary project when it was founded in Weimar, Germany, in the wake of the First World War. Like the movement that Ursula von der Leyen is envisioning, it was a multidisciplinary collective that brought together architects (its founder was the modernist pioneer Walter Gropius), artists (including the painters Wassily Kandinsky and Paul Klee), photographers, typographers, and furniture-makers. The Bauhaus only existed for 14 years but it became the twentieth century’s most important college of architecture, design and art. Many of its principles remain today and are seen in devices such as Apple’s iPod, some of the more classic furniture designs from Ikea, and many kit houses. However, these principles didn’t take into account the impact of these products on the environment.

The influence of the Bauhaus was underpinned by the radical way that the students were taught. Education at the Bauhaus brought together artists and technologists through an innovate teaching approach which was diverse and hands-on, spanning many crafts and skills. The divergent trajectories students might follow were represented in a curricular diagram.

The singularity of the circle gave a holistic nature of a Bauhaus education, in which diverse disciplinary backgrounds were to come together in pursuit of a shared mission to reform art, design, and society.

Science already has an impressive CV of discovering new phenomenon and turning them into products. For example, in 1897 the scientist J J Thompson discovered the electron which is now enabling me to type and distribute this post around the world. There are many branches of science that must be included in the curriculum of a new Bauhuas. Material science could develop packaging materials to replace plastic that can be recycled in a way that produces a positive impact on biodiversity. Social science could investigate the response of consumers to the aesthetics of a product and whether it will change their behaviour to increase recycling. Computer scientists could develop a ‘digital scrapyard’ where parts from one product could be reused on another product.

With the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic emphasising that we are all in the same boat when tackling climate change then a new product design movement with a global perspective is needed more than ever. But an integral part of the new movement must be science. Science can steer a new Bauhaus in the direction of a sustainable future.

Walk around any high street in the UK and you’ll be struck by two things: they all look the same and the increasing number of empty shops. It is clear that government studies and pronouncements from retail experts hasn’t worked. It is time for local communities to take back their high streets.

Out-of-town supermarkets, hypermarkets, retail parks and online shopping have sucked the life out of the high street which once served communities’ material needs and were a focus for many of their activities. The majority of independent shops have gone and the space has been filled by national chains that have turned the the look and feel of the high street into the same throughout the UK.

The forces that have shaped the high street have significantly increased due to the Covid-19 pandemic. On-line shopping has increased by over 100% and is unlikely to reduce ( my hope is that the shopping will eventually be delivered by electric vehicles! ). Social measures that have been put in place to reduce the spread of the virus have reduced footfall on the high street and will probably change our shopping behaviour for the foreseeable future. All of these changes will continue the decline of the high street.

Rather than looking at the high street with an air of depression we should look at empty shops as space that could be brought back to life for the local communities that they serve. We should tap into the many ideas being developed by local councils, campaign groups and individuals to regenerate the high streets.

The first step is to bring a green environment onto the high street. Just as some architects design houses to bring the garden into the house by opening up the space with covered terraces and courtyards a similar approach could be taken to bring the countryside into the high street. There are many ways of doing this for example planting a network of trees that connect the high street to the countryside. Ugly or empty premises could be covered with living walls which grow plants vertically. Public spaces could be taken over by the local community to grow fruit and vegetables similar to what has been achieved by a group in Todmorden in Yorkshire. Canopies could be constructed on the high street to protect people from the inclement weather and at the same time capture rainwater to feed the trees and plants.

The next stage is to develop the empty spaces for independent shops and other community activities. Empty department stores would be converted into mini food hubs where fresh produce could be sold and customers could watch its preparation through glass windows similar to what is happening at the Ludlow Farm Shop. National chains will still be part of the high street but local building regulations could specify that their brand is minimised or better still local artists or school children are allowed to paint their shops fronts with pictures to reflect the aspirations of the local community. Other empty shops could be used to house small cinemas, clubs, groups, life-long learning and other cultural activities. Environmental related activities would use the space such as recycling, repairing equipment to extend their life, or repurposing materials that would have gone to landfills for example Granby Workshop who use broken plates, tiles, bricks and old toilets to make pottery.

The high street would be recovered through a partnership between local government, communities and action groups. One of the initiatives that they could introduce is a local currency to ensure that the economic activity remains in the community similar to the Totnes Pound. which would encourage the growth of local independent shops. A local carbon tax could be introduced where locally produced goods and services are exempt. Similar goods and services from outside the community would be taxed to reflect the carbon miles that they used. The local carbon tax would rebalance the economy from national chains back to the local community and improve the environment. The community would be brought together by discussing and working on the development of their high street. A local newspaper would be used to keep the community involved. There are many excellent examples where a news paper style is an integral part of the community life for example the weekly The Tarporley News to Liverpool’s Scottie Press which covers many of the social problems in their area.

The roots of the modern high street can be found in the era of rural self-sufficiency when the vast majority of the populace grew their own food, and bartered for livestock and services. During this time, baking, dressmaking, cobbling, hairdressing and other tasks were part of the local economy. We cannot turn the clock back to those days but we can rediscover the roots of the high street and grow it in a direction that benefits the local community and the environment.

In Lilly Cole’s book Who Cares Wins: Reason For Optimisim in Our Changing World she recounts a story when Maria Carter was asked by her school to write about an environmental solution. She handed in something surprising which started me thinking about knives and landfills.

While most children wrote about taking a shorter shower or using energy-efficient light bulbs, Maria submitted advice on knife sharpening. Her farther, Murray Carter, is a 17^th generation Yoshimoto bladesmith living in Canada. Maria explained that it takes a lot of resources to make a knife - steel from iron ore, coal furnaces, wood or plastic - but when they become dull, they often end up in landfills where most of their plastic handles will take centuries to biodegrade. Yet as Maria points out, ‘Most knives can be sharpened ( and reused for decades ) until the blade disappears!

The story raised a few interesting questions. First how would I get rid of a knife in the UK? There seems to be two ways of disposing of a knife: wrapping it up in a way that is safe and putting it the kerbside general waste bin ( I am assuming that a metal detector will pick it up at the household waste centre), or take it to the local household waste centre and put it in the metal bin. But Maria’s advice points to a much deeper question - why don’t people sharpen their kitchen knives? There are lots of instructions on the the web about sharpening a knife, including advice from celebrity chefs such as Jamie Oliver. Is it because people are not confident in sharpening a knife? Or do they not have enough time to sharpen it? Is it because they are sold the latest wonder knife that doesn’t need sharpening? Or is it because the price of knives are so cheap that it is easier to throw it away and buy a new one?

Another question that came to mind was about how much waste goes to landfills. A report released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs earlier this year, revealed that British households create over 26m tonnes of waste each year, the weight of around 260 large cruise ships. This means that the average person in the UK throws away around 400kg of waste each year; 7 times their body weight. Of the 26m tonnes of waste produced in the UK, 12m tonnes are recycled, and 14m tonnes are sent to landfill sites. This gives us an average recycling rate of 45%. Germany, Austria, and South Korea remain world-leaders when it comes to recycling household waste, recycling 60 – 70%. In the UK, we are only recycling 3% more waste than we did in 2010. The UK government has set a target for us to recycle 50% of all household waste by 2020. Another problem is the reducing landfill capacity in the UK. An Environmental Services Association report produced in 2017 claimed that by 2030 there will be a household waste capacity deficit of 6 million tonnes!

Rather than trying to find new landfill sites or creating new recycling centres maybe we should change our perspective and switch the question from ‘how do we manage all of this waste?’ to why are we producing all of this waste?’

A simple framework for asking ‘why’ questions could be to use the headlines seen on posters about reducing waste such as: Reduce, Replace, Recycle ( I would like to add Repair and Repurpose to the posters ). Taking food as an example. It is estimated that we waste around £250 to £400 per household per year. Therefore the first question would be: why do we buy too much food?. The next question would be: why don’t we find a an environmentally friendly replacement for the food that we do consume? And the final question would be: why don’t we recycle either the waste food or the packaging? The three questions would dig out underlying problems with our attitude to wasting food. A similar approach to using the question why should be applied to other areas of consumption such as clothes, electrical appliances, and cars.

I suspect that the underlying problems to waste are a mixture of culture, behaviours, economics and social structure. If we are to reduce the use of landfill sites we need a multi-faceted approach to the problem rather than pick away at the problem with single point campaigns such as buying recycled coffee cups.

Trying to find more landfill sites rather than reducing the amount of waste is a good example of what the psychologist Daniel Kahneman, writes in Thinking, Fast and Slow “When faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution” In other words it is easier to bury the problem than face up to the more difficult and alternative solutions.

Walking around a field of potatoes a thought came to mind: after picking the potatoes they will probably travel tens if not hundreds of miles to be cleaned and graded before returning to my local shop where I can by them - why can they not go straight to the shop?

Something needs to change if we are going to win the fight against climate change, improve our health and have more interesting work.

But how could it be done? First there needs to be enough land surrounding a village to support all of its households with food and other produce. Following guidance from the self sufficiency expert John Seymour, around one acre per household without cows or five acres with animals is needed. In the village where I live there are roughly five hundred households and therefore the land required would be about five hundred acres and it would be possible for local farmers to support the village.

To reduce the reliance on chemicals for increasing crop yields the emerging technology of robotics and AI could be used. The Small Robot Company, who are working with the National Trust, are developing robots that can plant, monitor and treat crops autonomously. Robots can harvest a variety of crops ranging from lettuces to raspberries. Once harvested there are different ways for processing the produce locally, for example it could be processed in shipping container type boxes which would either be situated on the farm or in the village. Shipping containers are already used in small bakeries such as the Docker Bakery in Folkestone. Milk could be pasteurised on the farm and containers could be used to house equipment for preserving surplus produce. Delivery of the produce to the customer would use robots similar to those used in Milton Keynes to deliver pizzas. Customers could register their daily purchases of the products via an app and the seasonal demand would be analysed using AI so that that the amount of annual planting would be optimised to reduce waste.

There would be many benefits for such a system. If the robots were powered via solar panels they would probably be much smaller than the large tractors that can be seen currently in the fields therefore field size could be reduced and hedge rows re-introduced which would improve biodiversity. Local jobs would be created to develop, build and and maintain the robotics and AI systems as well as growing and processing the produce. New skills would be required in developing technology such as 3D printing which would be used to replace parts on the robots. Old skills would be re-discovered such as pickling surplus produce or making containers from locally produced willow for the robots to transport the produce to the doorstep.

Of course there are a few problems with this vision. First there is what I have labeled the ‘avocado problem’ which is crops that we cannot produce in the UK because of our climate e.g. tea. Some form of trade will still be required. However with increasing breakthroughs in biotechnology there may be a way of growing avocados and other plants in the UK. Another aspect is the seasonality of the produce. Customers want strawberries all the year round but if the price for non-seasonal crops reflected the true cost, for example the impact on the environment of shipping them thousands of miles, then seasonality of home grown fruit and vegetables would become more financially attractive. Anyway I have found that strawberries being available only at certain times of the year makes them more delicious!

The vision is also based on a village or small town surrounded by fields but it would have to be developed in a different way for large towns or cities. Ideas such as ‘vertical’ farming and exciting projects carried out in Singapore which show that crops can be grown on carpark rooftops could be utilised. Producing mushrooms underground in a city shows that there is potential to grow food in large urban areas.

The long and complex supply chains that are used to bring food to our house are based on high carbon miles. They are also weak to disruption which have been highlighted during the Covid-19 pandemic. There are many advantages of locally produced food: significant reduction in carbon miles which will reduce global warming, fresh produce which will improve health, redesigning of farming systems will increase biodiversity, outdoor projects where the local community can get involved will improve mental as well as physical health, and more interesting jobs will give greater job satisfaction. Maybe one day potatoes picked that morning could only be a click away - now there is a thought.

Every second of the day millions of people around the world are preparing and cooking food. It is an activity that has been going on since the beginning of time. But if we are going to win the battle against climate change then what we eat and how we prepare it will have to change. Could a book about cooking ignite that change?

Over the years have I gathered a couple of shelves of cookery books. In amongst the collection are the ‘go to books’ from Delia Smith, Marry Berry and Jamie Oliver which I head for when struggling to prepare an interesting meal. But these books reinforce our existing lifestyle with enticing pictures of food and text that reflect either how we live or how we would like to live. All of these books fail to make any comment about the environmental impact of the food that that is being prepared. There are a few cooking books available that claim environmental credentials with titles such as: Seaweed and Eat It: A Family Foraging and Cooking Adventure, The Acorn House Cookbook: Good Food from Field to Fork and some by celebrities such as Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall’s River Cottage Everday but it is not clear whether they are selling a utopian life rather than changing what we grow and eat.

Cooking books are a major part of the book selling industry. A best seller can achieve around one million copies and therefore it is a good medium to create a change in what we eat. So this is my idea. It would have more impact if a cookery book could be compiled from leading people who are proactive in reducing our impact on the environment. It would be a recipe book with a difference. Each contributor would write about the importance of their favourite meal and how from their perspective it has helped them in the fight against climate change. To select the contributors a few criteria would be required. First they must be able to make the meal themselves. They must understand how the ingredients that they are using has impacted on the environment. Their reflections about their meal could include when they first had the meal, or how it kick started their desire to fight for the planet, or was it a meal that changed another person into a campaigner for a better world? The recipes could range from ‘something’ on toast to a meal made from ingredients that would normally be thrown out. They would be encouraged to write about their own personal dilemmas for example I enjoy milk products but with the need to reduce our reliance on cows what could they write to persuade me to give up on cheese and milk?

There are a number of names that come to mind as contributors such as Sir David Attenborough, Greta Thunberg or Chris Packham. But there are many more people around the world who are making a contribution in the fight against global warming. For example Miao Wang is working with divers to spread awareness about the perils of plastic pollution. What comforting meal would she make after a long day of diving and how does it avoid the use of plastic containers? Another contributor could be Angela Merkel who is the only major politician left who helped develop the original global warming agreement at Kyoto in 1997. But actions speak louder than words and she is leading Germany to turn away from coal and oil, and setting the highest targets for renewables and emission cuts. After a long day of politicking does the Chancellor of Germany sit down for a favourite national meal of rice pudding? It is important to include those who need a voice on the world stage and one possible could be Henry Saragih who is a small farmer who is taking on the Indonesian government and the palm oil barons of Sumatra and Kalimantan. Companies with links to government are devastating vast areas of Indonesia and southeast Asia to grow palm oil to supply Europe’s cars and kitchens with biofuel and cooking oils, and Saragih is one of the few people standing in their path. What does he cook for himself after a hard day of campaigning?

The cookery book proposed would be a sort of manifesto for what and how we should eat to reduce our impact on the environment. And when the many millions of people sit down to plan their next meal then let us hope that they will be reminded by such a book of how much they can play in beating climate change.