Twitteretter

In fact, off all babies. Our generation may be guilty of the biggest theft in human history, which we seem to be perpetrating with little compunction. We have built wealth on a recipe of low taxation, dressed with unaffordable pensions and garnished with energy gluttony. We cap it all off with unsustainable natural resource exploitation and suicidal environment destruction. We are well off, live comfortably, but are creating a World in which our children will be poorer than we are. A World in which they will have to pay the taxes we did not, to fund services not only them, but also us will need. A World in which they will have to work longer to cover our pensions. And where only their ingenuity and self-restraint may repair, or mitigate, the abuses we are mindlessly perpetrating on the nature that sustains us. They will inherit the Earth from us, a bankrupt estate besieged by impatient creditors and devoid of value. Do we have the will to change our will, while it is not too late? ...

Sustainability is a big issue for humanity today. Ten years away from the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals deadline, we are well behind schedule. Few people talk or write about this more eloquently than Peter Lacy, author of ‘Waste to wealth’ and ‘The circular economy handbook’. You should check out his work. Sustainability is a critically important long term objective, but too long term for most politicians, driven by the extremely short sighted agendas which have the potential of winning them another term. But, alas, we can no longer afford to delay. Time is short and the consequences are grave. It is therefore time to demand greater sustainable efforts from our leaders, not only politicians, but captains of industry and global leading entrepreneurs. Let’s challenge them, through public debate on social media, using our power as citizens, to provide answers to the sustainability question. They have the power to change our outcomes, and we have the right to demand that they do  ...

After a digital Hay Festival this year, I ordered my books from Waterstones, the partner selling the books of the authors participating in the literary festival. I could have bought them from Amazon, but I decided to support Waterstones, as I feel Amazon’s power in the bookselling market is too great. This, however, is not an easy decision to make. Amazon’s economies of scale and purchasing power means that, on my first order alone (4 books), I could have saved £20.67. On my total ordering for this year’s festival, close on £100. Choosing to pay over the odds is a similar decision to buying organic foods, but with less health benefits, as the book is exactly the same. I am paying a premium for the sustainability of high street bookshops and for a strong independent book market. Other, non festival books, I buy at single book stores, at even higher prices. But many others who may care as much as me about these issues may not be able to afford to make these choices. Those who can, should...

This is a very interesting concept presented by Roman Krznaric at Hay Festival a few days ago. The idea is simple. When making decisions, we need to not only think about our interest in the immediate future, but also about the interest of those who will follow us, our descendants. Many of the decisions we make today will impact them heavily, more heavily than they will do us (think climate change, or biodiversity destruction, for example). But they have no representation in the decision process, they aren’t here to defend their interest, to have a voice. There are a number of initiatives that can be undertaken to ensure their interest is respected, such as having Ministers, or representatives, of future generations included into our political process. We will, after all, when we are gone, be judged by what we left behind and, as a generation, our record is beyond disappointing. This is something we can still fix, if we tackle decision making with the Good Ancestor principle in mind...

The coronavirus pandemic has brought about the extended use of different kinds of disposable facemasks, anywhere except the UK, where the government is suggesting the use of face coverings which, as the WHO tells us, do not protect the wearers or those around them. So, facemasks are helping us control the pandemic, but they are giving us a new problem, we are now adding these products, in large quantities, to the waste that we already generate and we don’t know what to do with. The problem should not be exaggerated, after a few quick calculations I have concluded that facemasks add around 2% to the volume of waste generated in my household, but still, it is significant. Facemasks seem eminently recyclable, which would not only prevent additional waste, but further agricultural exploitation to produce the materials. They have become an everyday product overnight and we must use them sustainably. A recycling process with a high recovery yield should appear soon, or does it exist already?...