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.

During lockdown our kitchen was at full steam, flour availability permitting, producing cakes, chocolate biscuits and bread. But we ran into a problem. A cupboard door wouldn’t close properly because a spring had broken. The search to find a replacement part discovered weaknesses in UK manufacturing but also created thoughts about its future after the Great Pause.

With some instructions off the web and pressing a few clips I took the broken part out of the cupboard. It was a spring made in Germany. After deciphering a few symbols I headed back onto the web and found a few stockists in the UK. But when I approached them I received the standard get out reply of “we no longer have these in stock.” I eventually contacted the original manufacturer in Germany and ordered a new part that would take four to six weeks to arrive because it had to be made to order. Curiosity took over and I wanted to find out of if there were any UK manufacturers of equivalent springs. I found a few companies that supplied them to the motor and aviation industry but they didn’t appear to have any for a kitchen cupboard. What has happened to the manufacturing capability in the UK?

Manufacturing was once the bedrock of economic activity in the UK but has slowly declined over tens of years. In 1952, it produced a third of the national output, employed 40 per cent of the workforce and made up a quarter of world manufacturing exports. Today, manufacturing in the UK accounts for just 11 per cent of GDP, employs only 8 per cent of the workforce and sells 2 per cent of the world’s manufacturing exports.

The current Covid-19 pandemic has emphasised the weakness in UK manufacturing with our inability to produce medical equipment for frontline workers. However, there are signs of hope as it quickly responded to the pandemic with many companies, large and small, coming together to manufacture ventilators, PPE and hand sanitisers. This flexibility has shown that there is still some life in UK manufacturing and is the basis for building itself a stronger future.

When lockdown starts to ease there is another greater challenge facing us. Climate change, like Covid-19, will affect us all. Lockdown has given an insight into what a green future would look like with reductions in carbon emissions and reduced carbon miles. But for many industries once the pandemic is under control it will not be back to ‘business as usual’ because they will have to rebuild against a background of new demands. Now is the time for UK manufacturing to turn green and rebuild itself to lead the way in combating climate change.

There are many new areas that manufacturing could exploit so that it can rebuild itself. One area that has been highlighted during the pandemic is medical equipment. The UK imports around 40% of its medical equipment and given its strategic importance for future pandemics then there is an opportunity for manufacturers to increase its production in this area. Another area is the development of new medical equipment ranging from robotic surgeons to quick home tests for diseases. Transportation will require a massive switch to electric powered vehicles in all their shapes and sizes. There may be opportunities for new types of vehicles such as unmanned small vans that can deliver goods from local suppliers to doorsteps which would reduce carbon miles down. The UK produces about 60% of its own food. Manufacturing could develop new equipment to plant and harvest vegetables which will be in greater demand as consumption moves away from animals. New technology could be integrated into manufacturing processes to make them more adaptable for changes in demand for example 3D Printing ¹. Another example is the future design of equipment could include re-cycling so that old parts are returned to the manufacturer to be used in new equipment.

However, the changes required to rebuild manufacturing will take some time and therefore can not be left to market forces because they are too short-term. Government intervention is required to provide a framework for the regeneration of manufacturing. There are many forms that its policies needs to take. First government policy must have a stronger green element to drive manufacturing towards a green economy. Policies need to reduce cheap imports which ultimately export jobs which has undermined UK manufacturing for many years. If ‘cheap’ goods are demanded then government policy should encourage the development of skills in automation and robot systems to systems that will reduce the production of the goods.

Another change in government policy is education. It needs to be radically overhauled with a stronger emphasis on STEM, biology and the environment. The education system should integrate the arts into the design so that whatever is produced enhances the environment that we live in both physically and emotionally. Their policy must include re-training for people at every stage of their lives so that for those who are interested can stay up to date with the latest manufacturing technology.

Although the manufacturing industry accounts for the majority of R&D expenditure in the UK (65% in 2018), this is down from 84% in 1985. Universities should concentrate on teaching and research and not include spin-offs for new technology which has only been partially successful. If the research shows any promise for new technologies then it can be transferred to something like the government’s Catapult Network where business could get free access to the technology if they meet certain criteria. For example, the business should demonstrate that it is strong enough to sustain a shock in its earnings, as is happening during the Covid-19 pandemic, before they get access to the new technology.

UK manufacturing response to the pandemic has shown that there are signs that when the Great Pause is over it can have a stronger future in building the green economy. And next time I have a breakdown in our kitchen I can return the part to a UK manufacturer for repair!

^{1. For an in-depth guide about 3D Printing then see: 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing Using Polymers - Complete Guide ↩}

A simple equation has changed the way that we live. It is having a greater impact than any of the ground breaking theories from science. The reproduction number \(R\) is being used to change our behaviours to reduce the spread of the Covid-19 virus and will leave its mark on us well into the future.

Governments around the world are using \(R\) to guide their actions in controlling the spread of the Covid-19 virus. The version of \(R\) that they are using is the “basic” reproduction number, \(R_0\) ( or \(R\) nought) and it is the situation when when no one has been vaccinated, no one has had the disease before and there is no way to control the disease. Calculating \(R\) is a complicated process but comes down to three components: how long a person is infected, how often they come in contact with others and how the disease is spread. A long period of infection will increase the value of \(R\). If a person comes in contact with lots of people then they increase the value of \(R\) as well as how it is transmitted for example airborne diseases will give a higher value.

The value of \(R\) is used to assess the contagiousness of a disease. For example if \(R\) has a value of 2 then one infected person will pass the virus onto another two other people who in turn will each pass it onto another two and so on. If \(R\) is less than 1 then the spread of the virus will decline. Calculating $R$ requires complex mathematical modelling, lots of data and powerful computers which results, at best, in an average for its value. For example $R$ has a value of between 1 - 2 for the common cold, SARS is 2 - 5, and at the early stages of Covid-19 it varied between 1.4 - 5.7. The UK Government’s action plan is aimed at reducing \(R\) by breaking the transmission of the virus with regular messages by washing hands, enforcing social distancing and a lockdown for non-essential workers. Early signs, but unconfirmed, is that \(R\) could be between 1 and 0.5

But it is the impact of reducing \(R\) which is having a dramatic impact on our lives. Health and Social Care systems are having to respond to the virus in ways that were never expected as they fight to save as many lives as possible. Non-essential parts of the UK economy have hit a brick wall while other sectors plummeted to their lowest levels of activity since records began. There is a similar picture around the world which is slowing global trade and will ultimately reduce economic activity in national economies. The response of governments to the pandemic is starting to raise fundamental questions about how we live and work. How will those people who are identified as key workers be valued in the future by society? Will government intervention in the economy during the crisis remain for many years ahead? Is their proposed tracking and tracing app a step too far in monitoring society? How much do we really know about the human body and how it works and how its it translated into medicine Will the growth of the digital economy accelerate through on-line entertainment and delivering more goods to our doorsteps but will it go on to change the type of work? Are the days of commuting over? Will on-line learning become an integral part of education? Will the remote monitoring and support of patients be a few clicks from a doctors desk? Should the length of supply chains be reduced to within our shores and we make more of our own products so that we can respond quickly to future crisis?

If \(R\) had stayed buried in technical papers and and discussed in specialist conferences with the occasional discussion at a government strategic committee then we would never of heard of it. But now it has made its way into everyones lives, through the actions of governments, then lots of questions are bubbling to the surface. The longer that the fight against Covid-19 goes on then the greater the public will require action in answering these questions.

Over a century ago Einstein’s equation \(E=mc^2\) was brought to the publics attention which heralded the start of a revolution in our understanding of how the universe works, from planets down to the quantum level, which created the technology that has shaped our lives. \(R\) has signalled the start of another science revolution but this time it will be in our understanding of how we live together and down to the level cell activity s which will change our future.