An incident happened over forty years ago that is still fresh in my mind and is a reminder of the impact that we have on our environment.

Back then, I was renting a room in a friend’s home until I could find a permanent place to stay. At the end of the working day we usually visited one of the many fine pubs in the Kent town of Faversham. Returning home in the quiet of a summer’s evening, the only sound that could be heard was the rattling of an articulated lorry in the distance. Suddenly, my friend, who had never shown any athletic prowess other than lifting heavy pints of beer, shot off into the middle of the road and scooped up something in his hands. He quickly jumped back onto the pavement just as the lorry thundered past. In his hands was a small hedgehog. After catching our breath, we found a hedge and carefully placed the hedgehog with its nose pointing towards the fields.

Since the incident, the number of hedgehogs that I have seen can be counted on one hand and none in last fifteen to twenty years. Statistics confirm that there has been an 80% decline in hedgehogs since the 1950s. This is attributed to the intensification of agriculture through the loss of hedgerows and permanent grasslands, increased field sizes, and the use of pesticides which reduce the amount of prey available.

The decline of the hedgehog is one amongst many species that are under threat of extinction from the way that we live. 41% of UK species have declined since 1970s and fish stocks are continuing to fall as oceans warm. As Sir David Attenborough tirelessly points out, we are only one of a multitude of species from an ecosystem that contributes to life on this planet. If one species in this case us, dominates others, then our future will eventually be threatened. A clear example of the threat to our existence is the decline of the bee which has been affected by intensive farming, climate change and pesticides and is best summarised in the quote loosely attributed to Einstein “If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left.”

Governments around the world are scrambling to implement policies that will reduce Greenhouse Gases in an attempt to reduce the impact of the Climate Crisis. Digging into some of the policies it is difficult to get a clear statement on how they will improve biodiversity. In the USA the much lauded Green New Deal mentions “nature” but the policy’s emphasis is on how changes in economic activity will reduce green house gases. In the European Green Deal, biodiversity gets a stronger mention, but its main emphasis is still on the changes in economic activity to reduce green house gases. In the UK there is a biodiversity strategy Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services which has the ambition to guide England’s conservation effort during the next ten years. But it is a strategy rather than a legal requirement and therefore its effectiveness is questionable. In general, most governments have species protection policies in place but this is a rear guard action rather than being proactive in restoring biodiversity. In the case of the hedgehog, the UK government recently rejected a petition to make them a protected species. In amongst the many pages of policies from many different governments I couldn’t translate their aims into clear actions that would improve the outlook either for the hedgehog, or any other species.

In Sir David Attenborough’s opening essay of the Living Planet Report 2020 he argues that we are entering the “The Anthropocene - the Age when humans dominated the earth. The age when innumerable natural connections were broken”. If this is the case then government at all levels: international, national and local need to give more emphasis to biodiversity in all of their policies to ensure that we fulfil our obligations as stewards of the environment. We need policies that:

1. Encourage and promote the enthusiasm of the different groups and organisations working to save or re-introduce different species. In the case of the hedgehog there are a number of groups such as the British Hedgehog Preservation Society, but they all face an uphill challenging trying to get their case heard.

2. Provide incentives for any economic activity that improves biodiversity. The UK’s The Environmental Land Management scheme: public money for public goods is a start but there needs to be a stronger emphasis on biodiversity. In the UK there are encouraging signs with the 2020 Environment Bill which will put into law environmental protections and recovery. Unfortunately, the hedgehog was added at a late stage in its development whereas it should have been, along with other threatened species, at the top of its agenda!

3. Increase the research into how biodiversity can help with Climate Crisis. There are encouraging signs with re-establishing Beavers, that is showing that they can improve flood control by slowing rivers and altering the environment to encourage different animals and plants.

Sir David Attenborough and I will not see the Anthropocence phase on the planet but I hope that like the hedgehog, we scoop up the rest of the species, ahead of the work to tackle the Climate Crisis and return them to their rightful place as part of a living planet before it is to late!

The search for the perfect egg to fry with bacon and tomatoes brought us to a local farm shop. What an egg! But there is a conflict with our environmental concerns.

The farm shop is about 3 miles away from where we live. On a good day it is walkable which is very enjoyable because some of the journey takes us through a countryside full of wildlife activity. But when the weather has taken a turn for the worse a hop in the car is required which is bad for the environment. The farmer can deliver to the village but a minimum order is required and they only deliver once a week. If our perfect fry up has a future then a new way needs to be developed to transport local produce at minimal carbon footprint.

One day puzzling over this problem my concentration was broken by the sound of letters coming through our letter box. Light bulb moment! The Royal Mail deliverers parcels and letters to every house in the area once a day and when a parcel is posted to a local address it is delivered directly which minimises its carbon footprint. To meet our demand of delivering local eggs its range of services will need to be expanded.

We like to try and buy from independent shops but their produce can arrive in a mishmash of delivery vans and some days it starts to feel like aeroplanes stacking up waiting to land. A system needs to be developed where one van, preferably the Royal Mail, brings all of the goods to the doorstep once a day. If such as system existed then there would be a significant reduction in our carbon footprint as well as everybody else’s.

What is missing in the current economic equation is the cost to the environment from the carbon footprint of products as they are moved around the country. This is a major problem and some form of government intervention is required to ensure that the true cost is reflected in the price of products. The government has two levers to change the way that we consume products: legislation in the shape of laws, and taxation. New legislation can take many years to come into force for example the The Climate Change Act 2008 took over 8 years from a report produced by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. But even if a law was in place it can be violated such as the VW emissions scandal. Therefore legislation can take too long and is open to abuse whereas a carbon tax based on the miles travelled by products would reduce our environmental impact. If a carbon tax was in place then economic activity would be brought back to local, rather than national and global businesses, making it fairer and strengthen independent producers. A carbon tax would discourage local farmers from sending their milk tens of miles to a major city for processing and then travel tens of miles back to end up on our doorstep. Another advantage of a carbon tax is that it would disrupt the normal economic activity which would encourage entrepreneurs to develop new ways of producing and delivering goods.

The Royal Mail is in a good position to develop this once-per-day delivery service. They already deliver daily to every household in the country which could be the basis for additional services. There are encouraging signs that they are adapting with the new parcel pick-up service and investments in electric delivery vehicles. But their services need to be developed further with new logistics systems that could deliver my eggs and other perishable goods from anywhere in the UK. If such a logistic systems was in place future developments would be possible such as using automated vehicles. Imagine a Royal Mail van arriving at a farm and automatically picking up eggs and milk as part of its delivery round.

The Royal Mail has pioneered changes to the way that we live such as the introduction of uniform postage rates with the Penny Black in 1839. The stamp revolutionised communication by making it affordable for people to send letters, confident that they would remain private and arrive safely. With a carbon tax in place, its next stage of development could have a greater impact on the way that we live. One day we maybe able to get our fresh eggs along with other parcels and be safe in the knowledge that our carbon footprint has been significantly reduced.

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.