As part of the UK Government’s green revolution there will be a ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars from 2030. From then only cars for sale will be Electric Vehicles ( EV ). But given the Government’s track record in combating the climate crisis - how effective will the policy be?

There are many instances of governement policies not delivering its aims. In 2001, the UK chancellor, Gordon Brown introduced tax breaks for diesel cars because they emit less CO2 than petrol-powered cars, but it is now known that they emit other harmful pollutants. This government policy resulted in 40% of the cars on the road being diesel and an on-going investigation on their impact on health.

Electric Vehicles have the banner attached to them of “zero emmisions”. But that is only looking at one part of a complex problem. A much better approach would be to consider the whole life cycle of the car. There are three elements: the amount of CO2 Equivelant( CO₂e ) that is produced in making the EV, the amount of CO₂e produced generating the electricity to power the EV and finally the amount of CO₂e produced during its disposal. Searching on the web to find out the data to compare the life cycle of an EV with petrol and diesel is very difficult because of the many assumptions that are used to promote a point of view. A study by the engineering company Ricardo demonstrates CO2 emissions from a life cycle analysis shows a different picture. For a standard gasoline car the estimated lifecycle emissions is 24 tonnes CO₂e, with 5.6 tonnes CO₂e estimated in its production. For a EV it is 19 Tonnes CO₂e with 8.8 Tonnes CO₂e estimated in its production. Therefore the reduction in CO₂e over the life of an EV compared to petrol car is around 20% which is good but maybe not what the banner headline of “zero emissions” is suggesting.

The government’s plan for a green revolution is based on ten key points which covers, power generation, housing and transportation but doesn’t take into account any life cycle analysis for any of its elements. Therefore its effectiveness must be called into question.

Moving to zero emission cars is a good step forward for managing the climate crisis and improving health, particularly in urban areas. But rigorous analysis should be carried out so that the government policies can be held to account for their effectiveness. Life cycle analysis gives a better picture of the overall impact a car, food production, housing or any other activity has on the climate crisis. Lets hope that we don’t end up with a similar situation that we had with diesel vehicles!

After writing this blog for over five years I felt that it was a good time to look back and gather a few lessons for its future direction.

When I started the blog I had two aims: improve my writing skills and develop the discipline of publishing something on a regular basis. I am from a generation whose education missed out on the importance of grammar to express ideas clearly. I have struggled ever since. The title of the blog is - Thinking Out Loud - which describes the impact of ideas on how we live and therefore it is important to describe those ideas clearly. Also, talking to many would-be-bloggers it was clear that after about three or four posts they’d run out of steam and stopped. I wanted to challenge myself to keep going. I was not targeting any particular audience which is at odds with the normal motivation of a blogger who is trying to establish the writer in the public consciousness either to promote themselves or a business that is related to them. There are thousands, if not millions, of posts published every minute on the web. Therefore, I decided to keep mine down to a two to three minute read; in other words something that could be read while having a coffee. This meant that each post had to engage the reader quickly and make its point clearly - another challenge! To give myself a chance of maintaining the post frequency I kept them at one post per month. This gave me enough time to explore ideas before putting pen to paper ( yes I draft ideas on paper! ).

I wasn’t sure how the blog was going to go so I wanted to keep my running costs for the web site down to zero. I used the free GitHub Pages to run the web site and Jekyll with a free theme to display the posts. This approach allowed me to modify the software so that I could try out different formats for the blog. Google Analytics is used to gather data on how often each post was being accessed and which search terms were picking up the posts.

So what have I learned? The biggest achievement is that I have kept the posts flowing for over five years which against a background of the trials and tribulations of life I can justifiably give myself a big tick. The results on readership have been mixed. The most popular posts had a business flavour, with the most popular so far Being Creative With A Bear And Honey Strangely, the posts relating the work of Wittgenstein to current issues were being regularly picked up by web searches. Looking back over five years worth of posts it is clear that I write in a formal way which is understandable because of my business background. This is something that needs to change for future posts. I also learnt that editing is an important part of the writing process. I can re-write an article several times until it has achieved what I want it to say. Having an independent pair of eyes looking over the final post is a must - big thanks to my Editor!

The biggest lesson was to focus on a theme and look at it from different angles. That theme will be the one that will increasingly dominate our lives the climate crisis. For example, Margaret Heffernan in her book Uncharted points out that we are addicted to prediction and desperate for certainty. But modern life is complex and therefore most experts in forecasting are reluctant to look more than 400 days out. What does this mean for the future targets set by governments and business that involve looking tens of years ahead? Another area is using Wittgenstein insights into how language works and applying them to sift through the endless media discussions to separate facts about the climate crisis from what Greta Thunberg succinctly puts as blah, blah, blah.

The last five years have been hard work and there have been many days when I have asked myself why I am bothering. But after I have published each post there has been a feeling of achievement. I have learned lots about the art of communicating through words. I am looking forward to many more years of publishing posts but with a clear focus on the climate crisis and with a louder voice!

The subject of risk has hit the media in connection with the side effects of the Oxford-AstraZenica vaccine. But the benefits of the vaccine are being drowned out by the general chatter about the risk of blood clots. Risk makes good headlines but are we missing out when the benefits are not included in the discussion?

Every activity that we undertake has both benefits and risks. We are usually motivated by the benefits whether it is joining a fitness club to improve our health, moving job for a better career or having an annual vaccination to prevent serious illness. To get a better balance between the benefits and risk I have developed the following questions:

What is the activity I would like to undertake? It is important to understand as much as possible about what is involved in an activity so that a sensible assessment of the benefits and risks can be made. For example when I started cycling I learned about what is involved by peddling around in the safety of our backyard: learning how to keep my balance without falling off ( which took a few goes ), braking to avoid a wall and learning what can go wrong when cycling too fast. I also passed my cycling proficiency test at school before I put my foot on the pedal and headed for the big open roads.

Understanding a new activity may involve different approaches such as finding out about it on the web, asking friends or work colleagues, paying for some coaching, or just giving it a go in a safe environment.

What are the benefits and possible risks? Continuing with the example of cycling there are many benefits: increased cardiovascular fitness, improved muscle strength and flexibility. There are also mental health benefits which comes from what is called the “cycling high” which increases the circulation of endorphins and improves mood, memory, self-esteem and helps with a better quality of sleep. There is information in the public domain to support the benefits and in the case of cycling there are newspaper articles such as Eight healthy reasons why you should go cycling this summer or scientifically supported information such as The top 5 benefits of cycling from Harvard Medical School.

On the risk side of the balance there is the possibility of being hit by a vehicle. This tends to happen at junctions, roundabouts, crossings or when a driver doesn’t give a cyclist enough space on the road. Another risk comes from skidding on dangerous road surfaces such as black ice or wet leaves. These risks can be reduced by wearing a helmet, avoiding main roads, wearing highly visible clothing and a helmet. Being aware of other road users and alert to road conditions can reduce the risk of having an accident. Statistics can be found to assess the risk such as when compared on a mile for mile basis people in the UK are more likely to die from walking than cycling.

Answering the questions above should gather enough information to make a balanced decision about the benefits and risk of a new activity. They can be applied to any venture whether it is sending a rocket to Mars, taking up a new sport buying an electric car. They can even be used on activities that we take for granted such as what we eat and drink.

Headlines that lead with risk jeopardise the benefits which in the case of the Oxford-AstraZenica vaccine means saving lives. It is a similar story for many activities that are discussed in the media. The concentration on risk and passing by the benefits reduces a balanced debate on whether an activity should be pursued or not. We could be missing out on something that could broaden our horizons and make life more exciting!

In 2018 the IPPC confirmed that climate change is having an impact on the weather. In response, governments and large multinational companies have been making plans to meet a net-zero carbon target by 2050. But is it going to be too late?

One year later, Greta Thunberg stressed in a speech at the European Parliament that nothing was happening to reduce carbon emissions and that around the year 2030 “… we will be in a position where we will set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will most likely lead to the end of civilisation as we know it” It is now 2021 and apart from more plans being produced there has been very little action. We are running out of time!

Relying on the politicians and business leaders reacting in time to the impact of climate change is frustrating; but what can I do as an individual? The task looks daunting, I am one person in the UK population of nearly 70 million people but worse I am one person in a global population of nearly 8 billion. It looks hopeless.

Sitting down with a strong coffee I scribbled out what I feel is under my control and therefore what I can do - a form of direct action. Apart from the the usual 3Rs: Reduce, Reuse and Recycle there are a few other areas where I can have an effect.

The first areas where I have some influence is how I spend my money. Whether it is the food that I buy or services that I use such as deliveries, insurance, electricity or water then I should be asking an underlying question about what, if anything, they are doing to combat climate change. If they are not proactively fighting climate change then I need to shop elsewhere.

Another area where I can take direct action on climate change is how I spend my spare time. Can I spend more time working with charities and campaign groups that are fighting climate change? There are many charities including The Wildlife Trusts, campaign groups such Friends of the Earth and the more direct action orientated Extinction Rebellion. One of the key questions that I need to ask before they get my time is how effective are they? A guide to answering this question is their track record at achieving concrete results in fighting climate change.

Finally I have a vote and how I use it has an important affect on the future direction of the country that I live in. Governments have many levers to combat climate change ranging from legislation to taxation and therefore influencing how those levers are pulled is important. Also, how the government runs itself is another important question because they must set an example for other organisations. The same questions can be asked of local government. Looking around at the environment we live in can quickly show what, if anything, is happening by the political party that has the majority. Finally, I should not be voting for myself but for the future of my children and grandchildren.

In the areas outlined above it is important to cut through the fog of talking about plans for combating climate change and get through to what an organisation is really doing and what they have achieved.

The predictions about the way that we live on the climate are based on a complex set of assumptions that at are best an estimate. The tipping point when the situation is irrecoverable may be in another ten years but it could possibly be within the next five. Either way we don’t have much time left but by us all making lots of little changes we can make one big difference.

In a previous post I made the mistake that I suspect many bloggers make which is not being clear about what I was discussing. Rereading the post I realised that I was using a key word - biodiversity - in a way that was clouding the main point I was making.

In the post I discussed my worry that in their charge for a zero-carbon world governments would trample over biodiversity. My concern was based on the way that many governments, as well as businesses and other institutions, were including biodiversity at a superficial level in their policies. The point that I was making was that we need both: a zero carbon world ( or better still a negative carbon world ) and an increase in biodiversity. However, I had fallen into the same trap that they are making and using the biodiversity as a brand name rather than a call to action.

I am not the only one struggling with the meaning of biodiversity. A search on the web came back with over 93 million hits where it had some form of definition. The one that gets close to my thinking comes from the Convention on Biological Diversity: “Biological diversity - or biodiversity - is the term given to the variety of life on Earth and the natural patterns it forms. The biodiversity we see today is the fruit of billions of years of evolution, shaped by natural processes and, increasingly, by the influence of humans. It forms the web of life of which we are an integral part and upon which we so fully depend.” Many other words that are used in the debate over biodiversity such as: food web, ecosystem nature and wildlife all have overlapping meanings which add to a confusing picture.

What the previous post was trying to point out is that there is a complex relationship between each species and if we are not careful when we change the way that we live to combat the climate crisis then we could have a devastating impact on some of species we are trying to save! The example of the hedgehog highlights the sensitivity we have on a species. The reasons underlying hedgehogs’ decline are varied and complex. In the UK the hedgehog’s main predators are badgers. The UK Government’s badger culling programme is an attempt to reduce TB in cattle. But it has driven those badgers that have survived to move into more land and as they spread out they are probably eating more hedgehogs. Coming closer to our gardens hedgehogs eat worms, beetles, slugs, caterpillars, earwigs and millipedes. But the use of some types of slug pellets not only poisons them but reduces their food supply. This is a clear example where we have failed to understand the complexity of our relationship with another species resulting in a destructive impact.

Organisations at international, national and local levels must use the word biodiversity clearly so that they can be held accountable for their actions. Using words that hang in the air allows them too much scope to argue away their failed actions. In the case of the UK Government’s recently updated Social Value Legislation it states that all government contracts above a certain value must demonstrate that they have improved social value. In amongst the documents there is a framework that includes Climate Change with only one mention of biodiversity. The only measurable action that could have an impact on biodiversity is an increase in green spaces. There is no link to how increasing green spaces, although a good thing, will improve any particular species. If green spaces are increased but the hedgehog continues to decline can that be considered a success?

Being clear on the meaning of words used by organisations is key to holding them accountable for their actions. Although there are many good intentions in the various policies and statements produced by governments, businesses and other organisations, they must have clear actions whose results can be measured. In the case of biodiversity the complex relationship between all species must be made clear so that their actions only improve the situation. The environment that all species, including us, rely on is chocking from greenhouse gases but let us make sure that as we clear up the mess we don’t end up the last species on the planet!